ATG crew small arms fire.

[Erwin]

These youngsters never do, lol...

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't think the armored covered arc will necessarily make any difference. IIRC all that the ACA does is prevent firing at non-armored targets. It does not restrict which weapons are fired at armored targets. At least I don't remember it doing that in CMx1

[Artofwar]

The tank stops and immediately zeroes in on the gun and destroys it.

When the tank stopped the anti tank gun should have been able to fire first and take it out maybe the expierience level of the anti tank vs tank crew was a factor.

Cool fog of war factor though

[Amizaur]

Armor cover arc may not fix ity. But the BF can fix it anyway. Just like it will probably fix using small arms by second member of AT team. It's just right thing to do, and I bet they realised that already. It's just small fix, call it optimisation, there is lot of such fixes and fine tuning in patches. I want to believe this problem is on their list.

[Hilts]

When the tank stopped the anti tank gun should have been able to fire first and take it out maybe the expierience level of the anti tank vs tank crew was a factor.

They had just about got the barrel round and were preparing to fire! If dud face had helped instead of electing to fire his rifle like a moron I suspect this whole ridiculous event probably wouldn't have occured!

[Artofwar]

I think dud face is one of my relatives or should I say was one of my relatives... Once I set a bazooka crew with a firing arc covering a bridge - got the bazooka crew by splitting the teams up - but anyway the tank stops just outside the cover arc. The plan was to allow tank to move into cover arc which would allow the bazooka guys to have a side shot on it an hopefully an ass shot as the tank continued to move over the only bridge on the map which was the only way the tank could get to the objective I had luckily already had mortared the infantry to where the tank was naked without any infantry near it.

So the tanks stops just outside the cover arc (because it saw the bazooka guys) - I got it on turn based so - oh actually its a stug .. so the thing starts turning slowly and just before the turn ends before I can issue more commands BOOM if fires and kills and screws up the bazooka guys - I was screaming at the monitor for them to fire.

But they faithfully obeyed orders not firing unless in the cover arc. lol

[Hilts]

I think dud face is one of my relatives or should I say was one of my relatives... Once I set a bazooka crew with a firing arc covering a bridge - got the bazooka crew by splitting the teams up - but anyway the tank stops just outside the cover arc. The plan was to allow tank to move into cover arc which would allow the bazooka guys to have a side shot on it an hopefully an ass shot as the tank continued to move over the only bridge on the map which was the only way the tank could get to the objective I had luckily already had mortared the infantry to where the tank was naked without any infantry near it.

So the tanks stops just outside the cover arc (because it saw the bazooka guys) - I got it on turn based so - oh actually its a stug .. so the thing starts turning slowly and just before the turn ends before I can issue more commands BOOM if fires and kills and screws up the bazooka guys - I was screaming at the monitor for them to fire.

But they faithfully obeyed orders not firing unless in the cover arc. lol

I can empathise with you....... I've done a fair bit of monitor screaming myself. Lately I have relied on pulling my hair out though. When I started playing this game I looked like Russell Brand! Now, after six months of playing I look more like Yul Brynner!

[womble]

Doesn't the upcoming upgrade include armor covered arcs as it was in the CM1 ancient days? So, this problem should be solved by that.

Unlikely, as the whole crew will be ruled by the same "Fire/nofire" rules, and if the AT element is cleared to fire (as it would be in this case: it was an armoured target), the small arms element would be cleared to fire too.

Unless they've specifically addressed this and made the CAA do what is being asked: inhibit the crew from firing their small arms at any target. Maybe someone who's used it is allowed to comment. Maybe we'll see an example in the AAR over it the FI forum.

[womble]

It had become necessary to hastily set up the ATG from a limbered state, in a nearby clump of trees. I admit, it wasn't the best camouflage you will ever see and I am not too concerned about whether it may have been spotted or not. The point is why did the crew give the gun's position away by opening fire at 100 yards with a rifle?

Whether or not they had been spotted is germane, since you assert that the rifle fire was the thing that gave away your position. Whereas I would figure that a crew scurrying around setting up a gun within 100m under some trees (was there any other terrain helping them stay hidden? Remember that some sticks with leaves does not indicate anything other than there are some tree trunks for cover, and foliage for porous concealment from different elevations) would get spotted quick-smart particularly if the commander was heads-up. ATGs are dead meat at that range if they're not stationary from game setup and in good concealment (which "unlimbering under some trees" is emphatically neither).

If you were playing against the AI, you can't be certain what the spotting status was. It's entirely possible the target had had you spotted for most of its lateral move across the FoF, and because the AI is limited by the same "hands-off minute" that you are, it actually took its earliest opportunity to take your gun under fire. It's entirely possible that your crewman's actions was the best that could be done and had, in the end, no effect on the outcome.

[John Kettler]

The ATG crew has small arms to defend the ATG against infantry or defend themselves should the gun be killed or otherwise made useless. I believe the AI should inhibit small arms fire by the gun crew unless one of those two conditions is met. Had such logic been in place, the outcome might've been better.

As I've repeatedly noted, the U.S. Army officially deems a buttoned tank to be only 50% as combat effective as an unbuttoned one, but you'd never believe it based on what I've seen in CMBN, where a buttoned tank rolls with impunity, firing on the move and creaming hull down AFV after AFV, at the back of the map, generally with a single shot. Worse, these things seem to have no blind spots. Granted, the Panther TC's high perch helps compared to, say a T-34, whose buttoned visibility plot I'm desperately seeking, but even a Panther has blind spots. The situational awareness I've seen exhibited by buttoned, artillery battered Panthers is, in my view, likely the result of deeding over one or more souls, or perhaps child sacrifice! A strong sneeze attracts deadly accurate fire, usually HE. Generally, the ATG doesn't last long enough to get a shot off, but in my case, I feel the fundamental issue is a small, easily pounded setup zone, the dominating German ridge spanning the map, and the essentially nil modeling of gun camouflage. I had an ATG in a crater, amid haystacks, taken under HMG fire almost immediately after the battle began. It actually accomplished something, offing a 234, because my .30 cal MG put instant suppressive fire on the HMG, and the wounded Green crew seized the opportunity and rid me of that 8-Rad pest with one shot, before the men and their gun were swiftly put out of action.

I think that ATG camouflage modeling was vastly better under CMx1 and feel as though my ATGs all have tall, bright yellow flags waving vigorously saying "I'm here. Destroy me now!" Certainly that's what their survival rates suggest. Behind walls, edge of a gully, edge of a gully in trees, behind a church, keyholed position, hiding, not hiding, cover arc or no--doesn't seem to matter, and I can't put them in the wheat field because it's outside the setup zone.

Decades ago, someone suggested this to simulate a buttoned tank's vision. Take a piece of paper and poke a hole in it with a pin. Look through that hole. That's what you can see stopped. To simulate seeing from the buttoned moving tank, jump up and down with said pinhole held before you. For loading on the move, it was suggested hoisting a 60 lb. sack of cement while jumping up and down was pretty good. Am becoming increasingly convinced that Panthers in CMBN are fitted with three-axis stabilized main gun and coax, as well as state-of-the art modern, all-aspect visionics. Not bad for a tank lacking even a rudimentary gyrostabilizer!

In my view, buttoned Panther tanks seem to have unholy levels of situational awareness which are neither historically correct, nor fair to the game opponent. I would further note for the record that even great German Tiger commanders (Wittmann and Carius) talked about how difficult ATGs were to spot, much less kill. That doesn't seem to be the case here at all. Further,there should be exploitable blind spots near the tank, but I've seen no evidence of this. Decades ago AFV-G2 magazine published a series of diagrams the Germans did of all the blind spots on a T-34/76 M41, and they were numerous. After that came a circle in which the crew could see nothing because of depression angle limits, particularly if the attackers came in low or belly crawled. Instead, Panthers are apparently demigods, for they are practically all knowing and all seeing. Have the massive casualties to prove it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

John, you really do not have a broad enough experience of the game,, having played only the demo, to make such sweeping generalisations. Are there problems? Yes, possibly. Are they as devastating as you make out? Certainly not. ATGs properly used in the right circumstances (which is certainly not possible in every case where a scenario designer hands you the things) can be damn near invisible. Ignoring the cases where your assertions are proved to not be general, and assuming that your cases are the rule is just contrary.

[John Kettler]

womble,

My conclusions are obviously based on my admittedly limited experience with the CMBN Demo, NOT the game as a whole, but I've repeatedly seen concerns me. In CMx1, guns were considered camouflaged until they fired, at which point they might or might not be spotted. Here, spotting an ATG seems to be trivial and the would-be victim tank hyperaware and instantly responsive. Within the limitations of my experience, it seems a LOT harder to operate an ATG successfully and the hostile armor far more lethal. I suspect, too, that the relatively short LOS distances don't help, either. My brave 57mm crew got a kill at just over 300 meters, but I've had hulldown M10s and Shermans destroyed, with one shot, from a moving Panther at 700 meters plus.

Does this mean I'm right for any and all cases possible? Hardly. I have played the CMBN Demo enough to see, though, some very strange and, by my lights, unhistoric and unrealistic things happen. Repeatedly. Therefore, I feel it's appropriate to mention them.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think the small size of most CMBN maps is certainly a factor. The engagement cited in the OP was at 100 meters. My own experience is that at ranges over 500 meters, generally, AT guns are rarely spotted after the first shot and can aften take several turns to spot.

Also, at those ranges you don't have to worry about crew members shooting rifles at the tank commanders, which I suspect they really should not be doing anyways even at short range. As someone else mentioned, the primary purpose of an AT gun is to take out the tank. Once that is accomplished the commander and the rest of the crew can be dealt with much more easily.

As far as tanks spotting, I wonder how much moving degrades the spotting ability of tanks and whether speed and terrain are factored in. I have no personal experience, but I have read that when moving at faster than a crawl over rough terrain it is extremely difficult to see anything out of the vision blocks because of being jostled around.

[poesel]

I remember that Steve told a story that during development they had a spotting problem with a tank . The cause was that the eyes of the TC were accidentally rotated by 90° to one side. So we know that BFC really simulates the eyes of the TC and traces LOS through the viewports. I also assume that the viewports are modelled correctly.

So the calculation of the LOS lines is probably very realistic.

But: being able to see something and to recognize it are two different things. I think everyone has stood right before the very thing he was looking for but didn't find it. And these were probably not combat situations. Stress, noise, smoke make things not easier.

IMHO there are two things which need some finetuning:

1) the rate how often a TC turns his head - that may sound funny but I have experienced it several times that a tank spots on very different places in a short time period. Usually the TCs attention would stick at the first perceived threat (a real threat that is) and try to fight it. That diminishes the ability to notice other threats. With that in place it would be more doable to create diversions.

2) the time until a threat is recognized - especially during movement, under fire and buttoned. I guess there's some sort of probability involved because else you would immediately see everything in LOS. Getting this right is hard but I think BFC is not too far off.

John,

finally buy the darn game - all the real stuff will occupy you long enough not to bother with such minor problems.

[womble]

...limited experience with the CMBN Demo...repeatedly seen...In CMx1...seems...limitations...seems...harder...

Operative words. You seem to be saying that CMx1 is the benchmark of all that is realistic and that if x2 deviates from it, it is flawed. You repeat the same scenarios where ATGs don't stand a good goddamn of staying unseen and are suprised they repeatedly get spotted.

It's not CMx1.

Listen to those of us who have used ATGs without detection.

Tanks firing on the move is an unfortunate disconnect that we have to live with for now, and BFC have to fudge. It shouldn't be accurate, but the combination of a lack of a "Move/stop to fire/move on" order (and no, waypoints don't cut that need, nor "Hunt") and the limitations of the TacAI mean that it has to be included. Theoretically, the accuracy of firing while moving (?at faster than Slow? I'm not sure?) was seriously nerfed in an early patch; it might even be the Demo missed out on that, as I've not seen any laser-cannon-armed Panthers (or even Shermans).

I felt that it was important to emphasise the limitations of your experience, since you didn't actually mention it (understandably you're pretty tired of having to caveat everything by now).

[dieseltaylor]

Perhaps at this point I should clarify what actually happened because one or two incorrect assumptions are being made. Firstly and most importantly the ATG was not in the process of being outflanked. The tank was moving at speed across the ATG LOF from left to right at about a range of 100 yards. The gun had spotted the tank and was busy tracking it with the barrel. It may be that as the tank was moving so fast a shot from the ATG would not have been possible before the tank became obscured from view again. It was perfectly obvious that the tank had not spotted the gun at this stage. Then the crew member opens fire with his rifle. The tank stops and immediately zeroes in on the gun and destroys it. Amizaur is completely correct. It would have been far better to just let the tank go by and then take out the next one. This is what ATG's are supposed to do, isn't it? In this instance there was absolutely no reason to try and take out the TC with small arms fire and as Baneman has pointed out, it doesn't make much difference anyway. In my opinion it's just another one of those silly and frustrating little incidents that prevent a good game from being a great game!

Several interesting points here. There is only one person able to spot the TAG/rifleman as the tank is travelling across the gun barrel and the turret is facing forwards.

That tanks are noisy is indisputable but apparently the TC is able to respond to the rifle being fired at him at 100 metres. Now the time to bring the tank to a halt and rotate the turret and lay the barrel on target would be of interest.

Generally speaking traversing a ATG which is pointing the right direction should be faster than a tank traversing across in front of it. Now exceptions like its a Hellcat on a road and its only in view for x seconds would change matters. A Churchill croos-country is lucky to do 8 mph, or 15mph on road when it is at full speed. Hilts you have the respective timings availableso how does it pan out?

My gut feeling is that if the tank is being tracked when it halts it should mean the ATG can fire at a broadside tank at very short range. Which leads to the question why the TC did not order the tank to keep going fast to gain the cover Hilts mentions. Would you stop?

It may be that as the tank was moving so fast a shot from the ATG would not have been possible before the tank became obscured from view again.

[Artofwar]

From Reading books by Ambrose I remember one thing he said in the bocage country they came up with and that was a phone yes a phone on the back of the tank that a Lt. Sgt. or whoever could get on it and in tell the tank exactly where to shoot cause that's how bad it was in the bocage you had as we all know infantry with tanks support at times but the tanks could not readily tell where the worst threat was at.

I mean some people do not like google but I google Stephen Ambrose AND phones and found out this info I was referring to is in his book Citizen Soldiers then I did a FIND search for the word phone in the .pdf of this book and came up with the following:

Another big improvement was in communications. After a series of experiments with telephones placed on the tank, the solution was to have an interphone box on the tank, into which the infantryman could plug a radio handset. The handset's long cord permitted the GI to lie down behind the tank while talking to the tank crew, which, when buttoned down, was all but blind. Many of the tank commanders killed in action had been standing in the open turret to be able to see. Now, at least, the tank could stay buttoned up while the GI on the phone acted as an FO.

These improvements and others have prompted historian Michael Doubler to write, "In its search for solutions to the difficulties of hedgerow combat, the American army encouraged the free flow of ideas and the entrepreneurial spirit. Ideas generally flowed upwards from the men actually engaged in battle." They were learning by doing.

The following is a hedgerow doctrine they came up with and it involved a phone on a tank too:

First Army worked on developing a doctrine as well as new weapons for offensive warfare in the hedgerows. In late June the 29th Division held a full rehearsal of the technique it proposed. Attack teams consisted of one tank, an engineer team, a squad of riflemen, plus a light machine gun and a 60-mm mortar. The Sherman opened the action. It ploughed its pipe devices into the hedgerow, stuck the cannon through, and opened fire with a white phosphorus round into the corners of the opposite hedgerow, intended to knock out German dug-in machine gun pits.

White phosphorus was horror. Lieutenant Robert Weiss got caught in a German barrage of white phosphorus shells. He recalled the bursting of the shell, followed by "a snowstorm of small, white particles that floated down upon us. We looked in amazement, and eyes filled with instant terror. Where the particles landed on shirts and trousers they sizzled and burned. We brushed our clothing frantically, pushed shirt collars up. If any of the stuff touched the skin, it could inflict a horrible burn, increasing in intensity as it burrowed into a man's flesh. There was nowhere to hide, no place that was safe."

After firing the white phosphorus shells, the tank put systematic .50-calibre machine-gun fire along the entire base of the enemy hedgerow. The mortar team lobbed shells into the field behind the German position. The infantry squad moved forward across the open field, using standard methods of fire and movement-throwing themselves to the ground, getting up and dashing forward, firing, moving. As they got close to the enemy's hedgerow, they tossed grenades over the side. The tank, meanwhile, came on through the hedgerow either on its own power or after backing out and placing explosives in the holes. Infantrymen could plug into the phone and spot for the tank crew as it fired at resistance points. The tactics worked, were far less costly in casualties, and were soon adopted, with variations, throughout the European Theatre of Operations (ETO).

[dieseltaylor]

Is this, # 42, meant for this thread?

Incidentally Ambrose is a bit of a naughty boy in terms of a historian and has been discussed on the CM threads before.

As for the bocage tactics any search for Doubler on these forums will see him well-referenced

[Artofwar]

yeah I was trying to talk about situational awareness of the tanks in CMNormandy and I remembered what I read in Citizen Soldiers Ambrose was naughty as I have heard he has in my opinion done a lot to help us better understand many aspectis of WW2 from an angle that perhaps many others did not present.

[sburke]

yeah I was trying to talk about situational awareness of the tanks in CMNormandy and I remembered what I read in Citizen Soldiers Ambrose was naughty as I have heard he has in my opinion done a lot to help us better understand many aspectis of WW2 from an angle that perhaps many others did not present.

Just don't quote him.... he was known for having some propensity to make s**t up. For example he trashed the troop transport guys a lot and turns out never interviewed a one. Pissed a lot of guys off in troop carrier command if I remember correctly. He can be a fun read, but take it as historical fiction and you are a helluva lot safer.

[sburke]

Several interesting points here. There is only one person able to spot the TAG/rifleman as the tank is travelling across the gun barrel and the turret is facing forwards.

That tanks are noisy is indisputable but apparently the TC is able to respond to the rifle being fired at him at 100 metres. Now the time to bring the tank to a halt and rotate the turret and lay the barrel on target would be of interest.

Generally speaking traversing a ATG which is pointing the right direction should be faster than a tank traversing across in front of it. Now exceptions like its a Hellcat on a road and its only in view for x seconds would change matters. A Churchill croos-country is lucky to do 8 mph, or 15mph on road when it is at full speed. Hilts you have the respective timings availableso how does it pan out?

My gut feeling is that if the tank is being tracked when it halts it should mean the ATG can fire at a broadside tank at very short range. Which leads to the question why the TC did not order the tank to keep going fast to gain the cover Hilts mentions. Would you stop?

Would it be an option to get a save posted? I have already once mis understood the situation. Would be helpful to have the whole picture before I stick my foot in my mouth again. I have removed shoes to make it easier, but still I have big (stinky) feet.

[John Kettler]

In the HSU Dmitry Loza interview I posted, he said they NEVER fired on the move at more than 12 km/hr and from generally level ground, instead relying chiefly on fire from the short halt. Since he's talking in the interview about gyrostabilizer equipped Shermans, this doesn't bother me much, especially considering he indicates it's more for shock effect than anything else. I'd be interested to know how fast those frighteningly accurate while shooting on the run Panthers are going when they come roaring down from the ridge in my "favorite" scenario. Pretty sure it's well over 12 km/hr!

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

In the HSU Dmitry Loza interview I posted, he said they NEVER fired on the move at more than 12 km/hr and from generally level ground, instead relying chiefly on fire from the short halt. Since he's talking in the interview about gyrostabilizer equipped Shermans, this doesn't bother me much, especially considering he indicates it's more for shock effect than anything else. I'd be interested to know how fast those frighteningly accurate while shooting on the run Panthers are going when they come roaring down from the ridge in my "favorite" scenario. Pretty sure it's well over 12 km/hr!

Regards,

John Kettler

Fine. Ignore information provided. One more time. Firing on the move is a bit rubbish, but there are engine limitations which mean it is a necessary, if unwelcome, abstraction. BFC know this and when they've sorted out how to, they'll fix it. Accuracy on the move should have already been reduced; the testers have reported significant decreases in effectiveness for firing from the move. What you are seeing is atypical and unrepresentative, drawn from a small sample. Have you even rerun the turns to see whether the Panthers consistently do this? You've not said you have. You just ignore us when we suggest that trying to replicate the problem is part of proving that there is a problem.

[dieseltaylor]

I believe the hunt command worked quite well for simulating moving and firing.! It is nice to know that it is on BF's list of things to sort.

JK - I would not be surprised if the Russians did not used the gyro-stabilsation equipment as it was very time-consuming to maintain and AFAIR it had to be re-calibrated for the different types of ammo. Allied units are reported to have dispensed with it as more trouble than it was worth.

[Amizaur]

Is engine the limited so much, that implementing in a patch "firing from short halts" is impossible ? Just make the tank - moving with "move" or "slow" command, maybe also "quick" (but not on "fast") to stop when it "wants" to fire at a target. Let it run untill the gun is loaded, then make it stop, aim, fire, and move it again untill it reloads.

It should reload 2-3x slower while on the move with "quick comand", and 1.5-2x slower with "move" command. After it reloads and the gun is ready, a halt order is given, after the tank comes to stop - the gunner aims quickly and fires (gunners already are aiming quickly...), then it accelerates again untill the gun is reloaded.

It doesn't sound hard to make such algorithm from programming point of view. It's only combination of existing commands and behaviours depending on already existing in the game conditions.

It would be also good to block pivoting hull rotation of a stopped tank when the tank aims and shoots.

In reality, in 99% of cases there was absolute priority of aiming and firing over positioning the hull, the drivers were strictly ordered to not interfere with the process of aiming and shooting of the main gun. Only the commander could order to abort firing and - for example - move on or back up or rotate instead of firing a loaded gun.

So - if the gunner rotated the gun on target and tank is in "aiming" state, please stop the rotation!

After it fired, the driver can continue to rotate the hull. (

Randomly, once in 10 cases the driver could ignore it and continue rotating - simulating insubordination or poor training or panic ).

I have lost quite few tanks (mainly Fireflys) which, after stopping and rotating it's turret at the target that was to side - then it couln't fire at it because the hull continuously rotated and interfered with the aiming procedure, aborting the shot several times. After 10-15 seconds of such pivoting and aiming without a shot, my tank - nearly rotated - was killed by the enemy which finally spotted him, rotated it's turret and fired . It happened more than once.