Tank Crew Awareness

[WinOrLose]

From my limited experience tank crew awareness is a little to good.

Should a buttoned tank be able to spot a solitary soldier sneaking up behind it whilst it is firing at a unit in front? Spin its turret round fire, then spin around again to hit another unit running in from the other side, all in less than 30 seconds?

I could just about believe it if unbuttoned, how good were the periscopes?

[womble]

This seems to crop up here every week. It's really difficult to tell, if it's the AI opponent that's achieving this, what the factors are which are affecting it. Are there other units in C2 of the Tank which have eyes on the unit(s) it's apparently spotting too easily? Is it just bad luck (if you play WeGo, do you have a save of the turn that you can rerun to see if it happens all the time)?

If it is just "unlucky", we don't, as a user base, have enough data or knowledge to say whether the minimum probabilities for spotting a team sneaking up on a tank are too high, or even too low. But we do, as players, seek out this sort of ambush a lot, and unless everyone was experiencing it all the time, which I don't think we are for unsupported tanks, or there'd be a higher volume of bleating about it, there probably isn't a problem.

[WinOrLose]

Well I doubt its in C2 as its the only tank left and there is little inf around. One of the squads game from a blind position so they could have only been spotted for a few seconds.

I accept that there is an element of luck and the tank crew skill level will play a part but my general experience, not just this time, is that they spot too easily.

[Bradley Dick]

There are also periscopes all over a tank that would allow for spotting in many different directions even while the gunner and loader a busy. Whether that's true for WWII era tanks is another question.

[Amizaur]

Are there other units in C2 of the Tank which have eyes on the unit(s) it's apparently spotting too easily?

The designers of the FCS (Future Combat System) tank would be probably very happy if they could achieve _in practice_ such level of C2 and crew Situational Awarnes - that the crew would get info - by some kind of comm link - about any enemy forces around the tank that are seen by anyone in the net, so even if the crew in that tank didn't spot them themselves they would be immediately warned and could rotate the turret and engage the target - all this in real time.

It would be great if the FCS crew in the future had such working system available with so great SE and fast reaction time.

I'm not talking about some kind of Link16 or other syustem that can relay to tanks info about detected over-the-horizon or behind-that-woods enemy units and tanks. I mean precise, real-time, one-meter level precise info - presented to the crew in easy way - about all targets, even single enemy soldiers, detected in proximity of the tank - in whole hemisphere from 5 to 100m, during intense combat.

Now, do we really suppose that the tank crews in CMBN have such links and are often warned in real time about single soldiers or hidden and barely-visible, crawling-in-woods teams, immediately can see those target themselves and can engage them in matter of seconds even to the side and rear ? (the TC and even the gunner at once know where to look for that target and without a second of delay gunner start rotating turret towards it and engages it) ?

I would say then that quality/quantity of information they get by a C2 link and the improvement of crew situational awarness gained by it is too good for WW2. It would be probably too good even for CMSF....

[sburke]

From my limited experience tank crew awareness is a little to good.

Should a buttoned tank be able to spot a solitary soldier sneaking up behind it whilst it is firing at a unit in front? Spin its turret round fire, then spin around again to hit another unit running in from the other side, all in less than 30 seconds?

I could just about believe it if unbuttoned, how good were the periscopes?

The short answer with no qualifying statements or concerns about what all else might be going on, no.

On the other hand, my AT teams are killing a lot of tanks. How close are you trying to get? The Shreck is your friend. The Shreck is the private nightmare of all tankers. All hail the Shreck.

Also when CMBN came out folks cried long and hard about units firing on tanks and giving away their position. In Hamel Vallee I let my units take any shots they wanted at the exposed TCs, all power to em. Amazing how disruptive it can be for armored support when those TCs start getting popped. I think Broadsword will back me up here, tanks fighting in constricted terrain where there is a lot of firing, dust, smoke etc are very very vulnerable. The first allied casualty I was able to see in Hamel Vallee was a TC, very fitting considering the nature of our battle.

[dieseltaylor]

Just the commander would have the ability to spot other than frontwards in the majority of tanks. Whether the ability of guns to depress vertically extends to the TC vision is unknown to me however generally speaking if you got very close to a tank they could not see you.

[Amizaur]

"tanks fighting in constricted terrain where there is a lot of firing, dust, smoke etc are very very vulnerable"

They should be vuneralble. But AI controlled enemy tanks in my games usually arent.

In my opinion they often detect and see targets too good and too quickly for my preference, and also react too fast after detecting them. I could bring many examples. But don't have patience to make screenshots, videos or describe in details every case when enemy tank is behaving like a vigilant and quick terminator robot... Sure, sometimes they don't see the AT teams... but much too often they detect them too easily. Just my opinion. I have a sense of proportion and would not be frustrated by that if this if such superspotting and superfast targetting was rare.

[dieseltaylor]

Slightly relevant and interesting anyway:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/german-tactics-against-tanks.html

The following translated German document on infantry close-combat against Russian tanks on the Eastern Front was published in Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 23, April 22, 1943.

[sburke]

"tanks fighting in constricted terrain where there is a lot of firing, dust, smoke etc are very very vulnerable"

They should be vuneralble. But AI controlled enemy tanks in my games usually arent.

In my opinion they often detect and see targets too good and too quickly for my preference, and also react too fast after detecting them. I could bring many examples.

Honestly I have 4 PBEM opponents right now and haven't had a battle vs the AI in a bit. However the TAC AI routines as I understand it are the same for the AI as they are for a human. Again I think there are things you can do to increase your odds. Tanks can be suppressed, the TC should not be allowed to sit up there observing. Smoke is your friend, intervening obstacles to LOS be it terrain buildings etc can be critical.

I may be singing to the choir and all, but again I have lost my fear of armor (except of course when some designer only gives me short range PF... at least they made up for it with the Tigers )

Suppress the supporting infantry, harass the tank to keep it pre occupied and be patient. If the weapons you are using are close assault (demo or PF) well that's a different story. Close assaulting a tank is deadly business and something I do my utmost to avoid.

[womble]

I'm not talking about some kind of Link16 or other syustem that can relay to tanks info about detected over-the-horizon or behind-that-woods enemy units and tanks. I mean precise, real-time, one-meter level precise info - presented to the crew in easy way - about all targets, even single enemy soldiers, detected in proximity of the tank - in whole hemisphere from 5 to 100m, during intense combat.

Hyperbole much? All I'm imagining is some spotter getting on the blower and saying "Tank 4, watch your 6,". The rest is up to the commander.

And if you think about it, a commander who's set his gunner firing at a target is spending the time until the gunner says "Target destroyed" looking

a) for the next target

and

for any threats trying to sneak up on the tank.

The commander of a tank that knows its flanks are exposed will be spending much more time on than a). Let's say the tank was a Panther (cos I can look at the model in CM and count the vision blocks on the commander's cupola) and there are 8 ways the commander could be looking for approaching trouble. Let's say that because he knows the driver and bow gunner are looking forwards, he doesn't spend much time on the front-looking block, that's a 1 in 7 chance he's looking in the right direction when the AT team break cover. If they're running out into the open, they will be seen almost immediately and "New target! 9 o'clock close! Infantry!" and the turret starts to turn.

So, if you routinely run your AT teams out onto flat terrain with no concealment to shoot at un-rattled armour, at least 14% of the time it's going to turn into a race between the AT Rocket guy getting a bead and the hydraulic traverse of the turret. And 14% is plenty to allow confirmation bias to turn it into "most of the time" or "too often".

[sburke]

Hyperbole much? All I'm imagining is some spotter getting on the blower and saying "Tank 4, watch your 6,". The rest is up to the commander.

And if you think about it, a commander who's set his gunner firing at a target is spending the time until the gunner says "Target destroyed" looking

a) for the next target

and

for any threats trying to sneak up on the tank.

The commander of a tank that knows its flanks are exposed will be spending much more time on than a). Let's say the tank was a Panther (cos I can look at the model in CM and count the vision blocks on the commander's cupola) and there are 8 ways the commander could be looking for approaching trouble. Let's say that because he knows the driver and bow gunner are looking forwards, he doesn't spend much time on the front-looking block, that's a 1 in 7 chance he's looking in the right direction when the AT team break cover. If they're running out into the open, they will be seen almost immediately and "New target! 9 o'clock close! Infantry!" and the turret starts to turn.

So, if you routinely run your AT teams out onto flat terrain with no concealment to shoot at un-rattled armour, at least 14% of the time it's going to turn into a race between the AT Rocket guy getting a bead and the hydraulic traverse of the turret. And 14% is plenty to allow confirmation bias to turn it into "most of the time" or "too often".

Interesting analysis. The odds are likely better than 1-7 as well. If you figure 3 of those are facing the forward arc, they might concentrate on the other 5. If you figure the angles likely have overlap then your odds of being spotted proportionally increase. Having no combat experience however or even real exposure to the vision blocks in a tank I'll have to put my hand up and say, I haven't clue. Are they very good for spotting someone in close or is the a limit due to vehicle height that you can only see something outside a certain radius? Is that even modelled? ahh heck with it, the Shreck has great range, all hail the Shreck.

[Amizaur]

Hyperbole much? All I'm imagining is some spotter getting on the blower and saying "Tank 4, watch your 6,". The rest is up to the commander.

By what "link" ? By radio ? What observer (whit a radio) ? How long would it take ?

Usually such "observer" that have a radio, is in contact with our TC and is observing situation, would be a TC of another tank, that overwatches and supports the engaged tank.

But another tank is not always on place, sometimes is buzy too, ect.

The infantry AFAIK had historically (and has up to now) big problems contacting tanks. average infantryman doesn't have a radio. Sometimes an external intercom sockets were mounted externally of the tank, so some infantryman - equipped with a headset - could crawl in, connect to the socket and talk to the TC. But other than that, for a buttoned tank it's a great problem. There is only a radio, and it's not very good comm channel. And usually is reserved for tank-tank and tank-HQ comm.

I'm not a military man, above is what I read or know or suppose. It's not that easy to warn a TC. Situations where it's possible would be IMO rare, and 90% of those situations would be when one tank observes and warns another tank about some danger or target.

But it's not that quick and easy as one could imagine...

So, if you routinely run your AT teams out onto flat terrain with no concealment to shoot at un-rattled armour, at least 14% of the time it's going to turn into a race between the AT Rocket guy getting a bead and the hydraulic traverse of the turret. And 14% is plenty to allow confirmation bias to turn it into "most of the time" or "too often".

I'm not that cruel for my pixel infantrymans. I do not run them into open to hunt tanks, a "12 o'clock duel" on the main street. And if I do, I accept that they are easily detected and engaged. A TC might have been watching this direction at the moment...

[WinOrLose]

There is a serious issue with tank awareness. My PIV (buttoned) fired through about 10 trees and a hedge at a concealed flank infantry target at 300m with less than a 10 second spotting team.

[sburke]

There is a serious issue with tank awareness. My PIV (buttoned) fired through about 10 trees and a hedge at a concealed flank infantry target at 300m with less than a 10 second spotting team.

Our Hamel AAR will show me consistently nailing TCs and hitting tanks with AT teams that sometimes have to fire multiple rounds to hit and still aren't getting targeted. I am just glad we don't have flame tanks yet as I am betting Broadsword would've lit up every hedgerow on the map at a certain point out of frustration. Not sure what parameters are in play to reflect some of the disparity in experience, but my AT teams if they are not hit by arty or run in to enemy infantry seem to be able to act almost with impunity at times.

[YankeeDog]

There is a serious issue with tank awareness. My PIV (buttoned) fired through about 10 trees and a hedge at a concealed flank infantry target at 300m with less than a 10 second spotting team.

Our Hamel AAR will show me consistently nailing TCs and hitting tanks with AT teams that sometimes have to fire multiple rounds to hit and still aren't getting targeted. I am just glad we don't have flame tanks yet as I am betting Broadsword would've lit up every hedgerow on the map at a certain point out of frustration. Not sure what parameters are in play to reflect some of the disparity in experience, but my AT teams if they are not hit by arty or run in to enemy infantry seem to be able to act almost with impunity at times.

It's very difficult to make any kind of real analysis of experiences like this without pictures, and, ideally, a game file. However, one VERY important thing to look at when considering these disparate experiences is whether or not the tank has any advance clues as the the location of enemy infantry, either via the C2 net, or because it has caught a glimpse of the infantry unit at some point in the recent past. You can check this by selecting the tanks and seeing if it has at a "?" contact in the general location of the enemy infantry team prior to gaining a full-out spot.

IME, tanks with at least some knowledge of enemy infantry location spot them much more quickly than those without. There also seems to be some sort of function in the game that allows a unit to spot an enemy unit that it has seen recently more easily, even if the enemy unit has moved or is moving to a new location.

[Broadsword56]

Not sure what parameters are in play to reflect some of the disparity in experience, but my AT teams if they are not hit by arty or run in to enemy infantry seem to be able to act almost with impunity at times.

Which just about matches the historical accounts I've read of Allied tankers in Normandy that describe their constant, absolute vigilance and terror regarding lurking German AT teams. Certainly this is the case in our battles, in cases where map terrain has resembled the amount of cover and concealment of the real Bocage country.

[WinOrLose]

If you PM me your email address I will email you the file. The target was on the entire opposite side of the map and only a ?. My tank had no direct line of site then moved forward whilst buttoned turned its turret and fired all in about 10 seconds. There were no units with a radio that could see the target either.

I replayed the turn a couple of times and even on max zoom I couldn't see the target through the mass of trees.

[womble]

...even on max zoom I couldn't see the target through the mass of trees.

This happens all the time to me, too. Usually, the TacAI finds LOS and proceeds to waste ammo against the foliage because the trajectory of the round doesn't match the 3 pinhole alignment the targeting algorithm detected.

[c3k]

Vision blocks: they are better than nothing, but they don't compare to normal vision - at all.

[YankeeDog]

If you PM me your email address I will email you the file. The target was on the entire opposite side of the map and only a ?. My tank had no direct line of site then moved forward whilst buttoned turned its turret and fired all in about 10 seconds. There were no units with a radio that could see the target either.

I replayed the turn a couple of times and even on max zoom I couldn't see the target through the mass of trees.

Sure; I'll take a look -- send me the turn prior as well, if you can. I'm PM you in a sec.

Preliminarily, though, while CMBN is mostly WYSIWYG with regards to cover and concealment, it is important to recognize that the view through soft vegetation in particular may not be exactly what you see. For example, in terms of what the player sees on his screen, tall bocage lines are completely opaque and cannot be seen through. If you put the camera on one side of a tall bocage line, and a bunch of infantry on the other, you wont be able to see the infantry at all, even if the camera is 10' away in terms of game space. But, obviously, units can and do spot each other through bocage, at least in certain conditions. So in terms of game mechanics, it's not actually as opaque as what the player view might suggest.

Tree canopies are the same way. Just because your view is blocked by a mass of tree leaves, doesn't necessarily mean in-game LOS/LOF is completely blocked; there's a certain level of abstraction here.

But anyway, I'll take a look at the file(s) and see what I can make of it.

[WinOrLose]

Files sent. I agree with what you say, but spotting through 10 tree canopies and a hedge at 300m with a buttoned tank in a split second is another issue alltogether.

[YankeeDog]

OK; I had a chance to look at the files in question.

Preliminarily, at least as a one-off "it could happen" incident, I don't see a clear problem. Relative to the tank, the infantry unit is exposed in open ground, sitting on the side of a road. The intervening bocage is not a factor because the tank is on a higher elevation and therefore the TC looking through the cupola view slots can see over the bocage without obstruction from the hedgeline.

If there weren't trees along the line of sight, it would be a no-brainer easy spot for the tank. However, there are 6-12 trees that, while not directly on the LOS line (i.e., the tree trunks themselves are not directly on the LOS line), are close enough that at least some of their canopy should interfere with the LOS.

So, at least for the purposes of evaluating this incident as a one-off "it could happen" thing, it basically comes down to whether you think the portions of 6-12 tree canopies intervening should be enough to be a "total" LOS block, which would eliminate *any* chance of the tank spotting the infantry, or not.

I'll try to get some screen pictures up over the weekend so people can judge for themselves.

I will say that I don't think a spotting incident like this is something that should happen all the time, or even usually -- it strikes me as a "lucky look" sort of thing. So if someone were to take time to re-calculate the turn many times, and a substantial number of runs are coming out more or less like the iteration at hand, then I think that there's some sort of issue here that needs to be looked at.

[WinOrLose]

Thanks for looking. You also need to factor in that they were spotted in only a few seconds as well. Even one tree canopy ought to make spotting a LOT more difficult. The tank was buttoned with known enemies less than 100m in front and it spotted and fired on a unit 300m away through 6 - 12 tree canopies.

I still maintain that this shouldn't have happened.

[dieseltaylor]

Thermal sensors and imaging are the secret weapon.