CMBN shows how to conquer the world

[Vanir Ausf B]

It is harder to hit a moving target. But shooting accurately from a moving vehicle is probably even harder unless you're on pavement, and even then maybe not.

[womble]

It's not science that a moving target is more difficult to hit a stationary one? Well then we've got no basis to argue because we're obviously stationed on different planets.

It's not science to ignore variables that you haven't eliminated.

You said "stationary behind a wall" vs "moving in a half track". Your assumptions about the relevant conditions could well be flawed. TBH, at 100m or so, the movement speed of a half track even at a 90 degree crossing angle is pretty easy to compensate for.

You've assumed that a wall gives the same level of protection as a gun shield. That is patently not the case, so your premise is based on sand. Since you don't seem to accept that, the rest of your opinions are basically worthless.

[womble]

Nope, it's happened often enough - from front, side, back - for me to be sure.

Well congratulations on deriving a whole new experimental method.

I'm saying that exposed gunners in moving halftracks, that are a prudent distance (ie, they are not within range of panzerfausts etc), from the enemy, are canon-fodder for small arms fire - this is not the case in similar situations with troops behind a wall.

You are also saying that you think this is an inaccurate simulation. Whereas I will contend that it's no surprise whatsoever.

And your "but troops behind a wall are ducking and diving" argument applies to the halftrack gunner - it's not like he's standing up with a peacock-feathered headdress begging to be shot.

Erm, no. Halfie gunners don't drop out of sight. They couldn't acquire and shoot at targets so well if they did. He is stood in a damn great bathtub being really threatening (check out how far outside covered arcs troops will shoot at an infantry MG they spot to see how threatening they find MGs). Victim waiting to happen.

"Outside ATR range" is not far enough away from an active enemy, and doctrine didn't use half tracks as "fire support". Because they were vulnerable.

Oh, and "A Strange Awakening"? Those half tracks that have no protection above the waist for troops actually operating the weapon mounted on them? Of course they die if they're in small arms range (which is well over 300m with 7.92mm); they have German squads firing at them. Jeez, I thought you were mad when I thought you were talking about tracks with some protection for their gunner.

Edit: You still haven't said why BFC should listen to you over me.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ah, I remember A Strange Awakening. Funny story there. Well maybe not HA HA funny, but anyway...

For reasons that I forget, I went into that scenario under the mistaken impression that it was a meeting engagement. So I consequently assumed the buildings in the middle VL would be empty at the start of the game. So I loaded those halftracks and sent them charging towards it FAST, determined to get there first with the most. Of course the first HT gets to the edge of the pavement and all hell breaks loose. Germans everywhere. The first HT is hit with something explody and most of the GIs die. All the rest of my HTs are racing up behind it into the same ambush. FUUUUUUUUUU.........

But then something funny happens. The TacAI saves my bacon. Instead of blindly following my orders to drive right over the Germans they reverse course and start backing up, blazing away. And those red crosses started popping up along the German line like roses blooming. Over the next couple of turns they rout the Germans almost completely off the VL. Even one wounded survivor in the first HT was helping out on the .50 as it was only immobilized. I only took loses in the first HT and they ended up killing probably 2 or 3 times as many men that they had lost. The rest of the scenario was mop-up.

I probably did get lucky and I would never do it again on purpose, but my experience with half tracks and their gunners is that they are not unreasonably vulnerable.

[sburke]

Nope, it's happened often enough - from front, side, back - for me to be sure. I'm not talking about driving the halftrack through enemy lines and expecting the gunner to be fine. I'm saying that exposed gunners in moving halftracks, that are a prudent distance (ie, they are not within range of panzerfausts etc), from the enemy, are canon-fodder for small arms fire - this is not the case in similar situations with troops behind a wall.

And your "but troops behind a wall are ducking and diving" argument applies to the halftrack gunner - it's not like he's standing up with a peacock-feathered headdress begging to be shot.

PF range is 30 meters.I accept that you feel it is modelled incorrectly, but you don't give me enough info to alter mine. How far is far, what kind of fire are the gunners taking etc etc.

It's not science that a moving target is more difficult to hit a stationary one? Well then we've got no basis to argue because we're obviously stationed on different planets.

Before you get snide it would be good to check your assumptions. Is a moving target harder to hit than a stationary one? You assume it is always true, I don't. How fast is it moving, how exposed it is, how big is it, what is the intervening terrain for the non moving object. All those are factors in your OP, you can't drop them to the most simplest form to then in turn prove your original point which was far more complicated.

I am not stationed on a planet... I happen to live and have been born on Earth. Which one are you stationed on? You know I HAD to go for that one right? I suspect you said it that way just to see if I'd react. Well it is early, but I do have coffee.

[YankeeDog]

Play A Strange Awakening as US. Empty the HTs, split the squads, and load the teams into the vacant HTs. Play around with the HTs in your assault in fire support of the main infantry force.

Good luck keeping those boys alive!

Hold on a sec... were's talking about American halftracks here?!?! That totally changes the equation.

Zels, I think you have some mistaken impressions as to the capabilities of U.S. WWII halftrack designs. It is completely accurate that occupants of U.S. M3-series halftracks are very vulnerable to small arms fire. The armor on U.S. halftracks is quite thin: All of the side ormor, and even parts of the frontal armor are only .25" thick, which isn't enough to reliably stop German 7.92mm at typical combat ranges. Even at a range of several hundred meters, 7.92mm will punch right through the .25" plate on a U.S. halftrack with a reasonably flat hit. Further, the protection offered to the MG gunner on American halftracks is often rudimentary, at best. In some cases, as the secondary .30MG on some halftracks, there really isn't any kind of a gun shield at all; the gunner is very exposed when he is operating the gun. Not that this makes a huge difference when the gunner can be shot right through the armor anyway...

In short, U.S. halftracks are NOT "fire support" assets. They are battlefield taxis that provide a modest level of protection against shell fragments and distant, harassing small arms fire. You can sometimes get limited utility out of them in the fire support role against known, suppressed enemies, but if you expose them to anything more than harassing 7.92mm fire, the occupants will die.

Q.E.D.

German halftracks are a somewhat different topic; their armor is a little thicker, especially the frontal armor. But their level of protection is still not enough to fully protect occupants from small arms fire. You can be a little more aggressive with them than U.S. halftracks, but you still have to be very careful with German halftracks if you don't want to lose them.

[Zels77]

I did the opposite - caused a stalemate in the middle with infantry and used the HTs to cover the Germans exit routes. Also used HTs to ferry platoon to woods on right in a bid to outflank German positions.

Throughout, HTs at various ranges, at various speeds etc would come under fire and either suffer gunner casualty in first or second instance - pretty much if an HT got hit by small arms, the gunner copped it.

[Zels77]

Hold on a sec... were's talking about American halftracks here?!?! That totally changes the equation.

Zels, I think you have some mistaken impressions as to the capabilities of U.S. WWII halftrack designs. It is completely accurate that occupants of U.S. M3-series halftracks are very vulnerable to small arms fire. The armor on U.S. halftracks is quite thin: All of the side ormor, and even parts of the frontal armor are only .25" thick, which isn't enough to reliably stop German 7.92mm at typical combat ranges. Even at a range of several hundred meters, 7.92mm will punch right through the .25" plate on a U.S. halftrack with a reasonably flat hit. Further, the protection offered to the MG gunner on American halftracks is often rudimenatary, at best. In some cases, as the secondary .30MG on some halftracks, there really isn't any kind of a gun shield at all; the gunner is very exposed when he is operating the gun. Not that this makes a huge difference when the gunner can be shot right through the armor anyway...

In short, U.S. halftracks are NOT "fire support" assets. They are battlefield taxis that provide a modest level of protection against shell fragments and distant, harassing small arms fire. You can sometimes get limited utility out of them in the fire support role against known, suppressed enemies, but if you expose them to anything more than harassing 7.92mm fire, the occupants will die.

Q.E.D.

German halftracks are a somewhat different topic; their armor is somewhat thicker, especially the frontal armor. But their level of protection is still not enough to fully protect occupants from small arms fire. You can be a little more aggressive with them than U.S. halftracks, but you still have to be very careful with German halftracks if you don't want to lose them.

Thanks for the reply Yankee. I'm not disputing any of the above, all I'm saying is that if there's one guy on a gun in a moving halftrack, it seems odd to me that almost EVERY time the HT - which is moving - takes fire, the gunner gets tagged.

I'm not surprised the HT gets hit, or that it draws fire, what I'm questioning is how it's possible that enemy troops, themselves under fire, are able to hit the gunner in a moving (lightly armoured) vehicle with such precision?

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for the reply Yankee. I'm not disputing any of the above, all I'm saying is that if there's one guy on a gun in a moving halftrack, it seems odd to me that almost EVERY time the HT - which is moving - takes fire, the gunner gets tagged.

I'm not surprised the HT gets hit, or that it draws fire, what I'm questioning is how it's possible that enemy troops, themselves under fire, are able to hit the gunner in a moving (lightly armoured) vehicle with such precision?

Well, where do you think the enemy is going to aim when they're shooting at the halftrack? My money's on that they'll shoot at the guy who can potentially shoot back at them. And considering that even those parts of the gunner's body that are behind armor are only marginally protected, I really doubt that gunner is going to last very long.

Seriously. Against 7.92mm at ranges under about 300m, he's only marginally better off than if he were standing on the back of an open-bed truck holding a bedsheet in front of himself. He's got partial concealment, but very little cover. He'd be much better off lying prone in open ground; at least then he'd make a smaller target.

[altipueri]

Wasn't there the tale of General Bradley speaking to some GIs after hearing about German bullets piercing the half-track armour.

"Oh no it's OK General, they just come straight through and rattle around a bit inside."

[Zels77]

Well, where do you think the enemy is going to aim when they're shooting at the halftrack? My money's on that they'll shoot at the guy who can potentially shoot back at them. And considering that even those parts of the gunner's body that are behind armor are only marginally protected, I really doubt that gunner is going to last very long.

Seriously. Against 7.92mm at ranges under about 300m, he's only marginally better off than if he were standing on the back of an open-bed truck holding a bedsheet in front of himself. He's got partial concealment, but very little cover. He'd be much better off lying prone in open ground; at least then he'd make a smaller target.

Point taken, but then do you agree that there should be a similar (if not higher) rate of casualty for stationary troops firing from behind a wall? A wall is obviously thicker than armour, but the gunner is in a moving vehicle and - though it's not depicted graphically - he would be doing everything possible to limit his exposure?

[Pak40]

For a game that used to pride itself on the pursuit of total realism, this should be seen as a significant flaw - in the same way that leader-seeking shrapnel was addressed as a significant flaw in the v1.10 patch.

First of all, these things that you call flaws are actually bugs. It seems like you're accusing BF of designing the game in some warped version of reality, and that's totally absurd.

The best thing to do is to bring it to BF's attention without the attitude. They will investigate it and fix it if they feel necessary.

BTW, I agree that you may have a point with the HT gunner getting killed rather easy. Furthermore, I'd like to add that I have yet to witness any casualties on my Bren carriers although I've put them in harms way quite often, and this is while occupants firing out of the back are quite exposed. Since Bren carriers and HTs fill the same role and probably have similar armor and exposure, I would expect similar casualty rates. However, I'm seeing completely the opposite. Something odd is going on here IMO.

[YankeeDog]

Point taken, but then do you agree that there should be a similar (if not higher) rate of casualty for stationary troops firing from behind a wall? A wall is obviously thicker than armour, but the gunner is in a moving vehicle and - though it's not depicted graphically - he would be doing everything possible to limit his exposure?

No; I don't.

First, as you have already stated, unlike American HT armor, your typical stone wall is more than thick enough to stop rifle-caliber ammo. So, unlike the HT gunner, the rifleman behind the wall has most of his body behind very good cover, not just concealment.

Second, a rifleman behind a stone wall can lie low, conforming himself to the wall and exposing only those parts of himself absolutely necessary to see over the wall and fire his rifle. In contrast, the HT gunner on an American HT has little or no gunshield, and the gunner has to stand to a certain height in order to see down the barrel and operate the gun on the ring or pintle mount. At the least, he's fully exposing at least his head, shoulders, arms, and upper part of his torso. Compared to a rifleman in a combat firing position behind a stone wall, he's much more exposed.

Third, the very nature of the HT's gun position functions as a large sign advertising exactly where the gunner is, or where he will be when he pops up to man the gun. Any enemy observing the HT knows exactly where to aim. In contrast, a soldier behind a wall can shift position one direction or another to keep his enemy guessing. He can pop up, loose a few shots from one spot, pop under full cover to reload, then pop up again a few feet to one side or another to make it harder for the enemy to draw a bead on him. Of course, you don't actually see individual soldiers doing this in CMBN, but as I understand comments from BFC, this kind of individual soldier action is abstracted in the "micro cover" protection the game provides to infantrymen.

[Zels77]

First of all, these things that you call flaws are actually bugs. It seems like you're accusing BF of designing the game in some warped version of reality, and that's totally absurd.

The best thing to do is to bring it to BF's attention without the attitude. They will investigate it and fix it if they feel necessary.

BTW, I agree that you may have a point with the HT gunner getting killed rather easy. Furthermore, I'd like to add that I have yet to witness any casualties on my Bren carriers although I've put them in harms way quite often, and this is while occupants firing out of the back are quite exposed. Since Bren carriers and HTs fill the same role and probably have similar armor and exposure, I would expect similar casualty rates. However, I'm seeing completely the opposite. Something odd is going on here IMO.

Cheers, I haven't played CW mate so I can't give any opinion on that.

[Sgt Joch]

two points here:

1. I am a bit surprised about the OPs esperiences with U.S. HTs since I am in a PBEM game now where I have a bunch of U.S. HTs, all with gunners providing covering fire from behind the front line and so far not a single one has been hit. How exactly are you using your HTs that you wind up killing all your gunners. :confused:

remember WW2 HTs were just fancy trucks, not modern AFVs:

The halftracks were initially extremely unpopular and dubbed "Purple Heart Boxes" (a grim reference to the US Army's decoration for combat wounds) by American troops[2]. Chief complaints centered around the complete lack of overhead protection from airbursting artillery shells and that the armor was inadequate against machine gun fire.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Half-track

2. There was no "leader killing shrapnel" bug. Many players seemed to think that leaders are always being killed off first, but if you run multiple tests, you will see that it is spread out.

[Zels77]

two points here:

1. I am a bit surprised about the OPs esperiences with U.S. HTs since I am in a PBEM game now where I have a bunch of U.S. HTs, all with gunners providing covering fire from behind the front line and so far not a single one has been hit. How exactly are you using your HTs that you wind up killing all your gunners. :confused:

2. There was no "leader killing shrapnel" bug. Many players seemed to think that leaders are always being killed off first, but if you run multiple tests, you will see that it is spread out.

1. Same as you bud - pulled back behind front line providing covering fire or ferrying troops to better positions on the flanks.

2. There most certainly was a propensity for leaders to get hit from exploding HE that had nothing to do with they "but they're usually at the front of the charge" argument. It has improved a lot since patch.

[sburke]

1. Same as you bud - pulled back behind front line providing covering fire or ferrying troops to better positions on the flanks.

2. There most certainly was a propensity for leaders to get hit from exploding HE that had nothing to do with they "but they're usually at the front of the charge" argument. It has improved a lot since patch.

Well first off again there was nothing listed in v1.10 addressing any issues regarding leaders. Womble noted something that might have had a possible related affect but only in certain given situations. Second your are replying to a beta tester who tells you there was no known bug (and he would kind of know seeing as he'd have been one of the guys testing) and telling him not only was there one, but it got fixed.

I dunno, but I'd be real hesitant on correcting a beta tester on what was fixed and what wasn't....

[Zels77]

Well first off again there was nothing listed in v1.10 addressing any issues regarding leaders. Womble noted something that might have had a possible related affect but only in certain given situations. Second your are replying to a beta tester who tells you there was no known bug (and he would kind of know seeing as he'd have been one of the guys testing) and telling him not only was there one, but it got fixed.

I dunno, but I'd be real hesitant on correcting a beta tester on what was fixed and what wasn't....

Mate I queried the issue ages ago and was told it was on the agenda to be fixed. I resumed playing when the patch came out and since then I've had very few issues with the same problem.

Not doubting that the game would cease to exist without your input, just putting two and two together.

On the list of fixes was something along the lines of: "more realistic dispersion from mortar shells".

[YankeeDog]

On the list of fixes was something along the lines of: "more realistic dispersion from mortar shells".

Yes, but that change has nothing to do with Leaders specialty soldiers specifically; in 1.10 the shell scatter pattern for mortar fire was widened a bit, and in some cases the shape of the scatter pattern was changed (e.g., some patterns became more oval-shaped, rather than circular). But this has nothing to do with the lethality of shrapnel vs. soldiers with the "Leader" specialty per se; any affects of this change would apply to all types of soldiers equally.

[sburke]

Mate I queried the issue ages ago and was told it was on the agenda to be fixed. I resumed playing when the patch came out and since then I've had very few issues with the same problem.

Not doubting that the game would cease to exist without your input, just putting two and two together.

On the list of fixes was something along the lines of: "more realistic dispersion from mortar shells".

I have referenced the patch list and that a beta tester noted it was not an issue he was aware of and you gotta come back like that? You really ought to do something about that chip on your shoulder. Dispersion of mortar rounds sounds like exactly that, not dispersion of casualties from mortar rounds.

You have this propensity to make sweeping characterizations and provide nothing but your impressions. With that you expect to be taken seriously AND get to make these crappy little smart ass swipes at folks. I think I would differ with Cpt_Mike about your being on the reasonable and polite list.

Apparently it's impossible not to kill the gunner. You could be anywhere in the world, and if you fired your handgun into the air, the round would come down on a gunner in a halftrack somewhere on the planet.

It takes concentrated fire to kill troops taking cover behind a stationary wall, but shoot at a halftrack moving at full speed and you are guaranteed to kill the gunner.

You can't see it in the game, but every halftrack - and unbuttoned tank for that matter - has a giant dog cone that directs all small arms fire towards the exposed gunner.

Very realistic.

[akd]

Mate I queried the issue ages ago and was told it was on the agenda to be fixed.

I don't believe you were told that.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101285

I resumed playing when the patch came out and since then I've had very few issues with the same problem.

Not doubting that the game would cease to exist without your input, just putting two and two together.

On the list of fixes was something along the lines of: "more realistic dispersion from mortar shells".

I guess you think that means dispersion of casualties. It does not. (edit: oops, cross posted with burke and YD.)

[cool breeze]

Thanks guys for the hilarious thread, it really made my morning! Anyway I woulda just read it and moved on but then I saw which scenario is being talked about, and last time I tried asking about it it didn't get any responses so now's my second chance with out having to bump myself

Anyway that was a really fun scenario but the half tracks brought up an interesting point for me with respect to gaminess. I also used my halftrack to support my attack with MG fire. However I only used them where I had already gained fire superiority, and thus suffered no substantial half track gunner casualties. I had the opposite experience with my half tracks on that scenario, They were kick butt fighting platforms. which brings me to my question. in order to get maximum firepower out of them I would reverse them into firing position with a covered arc towards the enemy, that way they could have all 2 or 3 mg's facing the right way. If it had been a H2H game instead of vs the AI would you have been miffed about the ahistorical backwards use of the halftracks, or would you have just figured it was a natural thing for an enterprising commander to do, to get the most guns on the line. I mean if there is a gunner standing there anyway he might as well be facing towards the enemy right?

[YankeeDog]

...in order to get maximum firepower out of them I would reverse them into firing position with a covered arc towards the enemy, that way they could have all 2 or 3 mg's facing the right way. If it had been a H2H game instead of vs the AI would you have been miffed about the ahistorical backwards use of the halftracks, or would you have just figured it was a natural thing for an enterprising commander to do, to get the most guns on the line. I mean if there is a gunner standing there anyway he might as well be facing towards the enemy right?

I don't think this is gamey. The M3 HT's protection to the front isn't a heck of a lot better than the protection to the sides and rear, and what few period pictures I have seen of HTs in firing positions do sometimes show them in orientations other than front aspect to the target area. Though I don't think I've seen pick of a HT with a deliberate full rear aspect facing -- usually flank aspect.

Rear aspect engagement also makes for a faster getaway, if they get into trouble.

[cool breeze]

Thanks YankeeDog!

[newlife]

Thanks guys for the hilarious thread, it really made my morning! Anyway I woulda just read it and moved on but then I saw which scenario is being talked about, and last time I tried asking about it it didn't get any responses so now's my second chance with out having to bump myself

Anyway that was a really fun scenario but the half tracks brought up an interesting point for me with respect to gaminess. I also used my halftrack to support my attack with MG fire. However I only used them where I had already gained fire superiority, and thus suffered no substantial half track gunner casualties. I had the opposite experience with my half tracks on that scenario, They were kick butt fighting platforms. which brings me to my question. in order to get maximum firepower out of them I would reverse them into firing position with a covered arc towards the enemy, that way they could have all 2 or 3 mg's facing the right way. If it had been a H2H game instead of vs the AI would you have been miffed about the ahistorical backwards use of the halftracks, or would you have just figured it was a natural thing for an enterprising commander to do, to get the most guns on the line. I mean if there is a gunner standing there anyway he might as well be facing towards the enemy right?

If I were the driver of the HT I'd certainly be all for that arrangement!