Sherman M4 (Late) v PzIVH (Late) static v moving spotting test

[noob]

I set up a test as shown in the attached pictures, the Sherman was static, and the PzIV was ordered to move fast onto the road into the Shermans LOS, stopping at a distance of 750m from the Sherman.

The crews were Regular, the setting was Elite, the weather was clear, cool, no wind, and dry, and the time was 12:00 noon.

Both moving tanks were given a cover arc and a 20 second delay to allow the turret to rotate to the correct facing, and to make the tank move onto the road at around the 30 second mark.

I ran the test 50 times for the static Sherman then swapped the roles, and ran the test 50 times for the static PzIV.

The results were telling.

When the Sherman was static, it got the first confirmed sighting and consequently fired the first shot 41 times out of the 50 tests.

When the PzIV was static, it got the first confirmed sighting and consequently fired the first shot 25 times out of the 50 tests.

So, if further tests confirm these results, a static PzIVH has no spotting advantage over a tank that moves into its LOS, but the Sherman does.

I will perform another 50 tests for each situation, but the initial results indicate that the PzIVH has to be tweaked somewhat, also i will try different Axis AFV's to see if the results are just specific to the PzIVH.

I have put the two .btt test files in a public dropbox folder at the link below if anyone wants to test it themselves, if they do please publish the results on this thread.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yc57ofm5n8d75uo/tUxIPPodjI

p.s.

The Sherman usually missed with it's first shot, but consistently achieved a confirmed sighting within 15 seconds of the PzIV coming to rest.

When the Sherman failed to get the first shot off, and was not hit itself, it fired within 5 seconds of the first PzIVH shot.

[John Kettler]

noob,

That's a rather substantial performance delta, and I'm dying to know what the explanation for this huge apparent sighting anomaly might be.

Regards,

John Kettler

[noob]

noob,

That's a rather substantial performance delta, and I'm dying to know what the explanation for this huge apparent sighting anomaly might be.

Regards,

John Kettler

Well whatever it is, if it's confirmed with further tests, it certainly explains why the PzIV didn't fire the first shot at the moving Sherman in the Big Dork v Tiresias AAR.

[Redwolf]

But I thought that BFC has confirmed that this is the case and intentional.

Or was I dreaming?

[Vanir Ausf B]

But I thought that BFC has confirmed that this is the case and intentional.

Or was I dreaming?

Dreaming. There is no justification for this that I can think of. If anything the Pz IV should be a little quicker at spotting due to superior optics both on the gunner's sight and the commanders binoculars (although I suspect CM does not model differences in the latter).

[noob]

Dreaming. There is no justification for this that I can think of. If anything the Pz IV should be a little quicker at spotting due to superior optics both on the gunner's sight and the commanders binoculars (although I suspect CM does not model differences in the latter).

Redwolf was being sarcastic i think

As for the tests, there is no way an unbuttoned PzIV has only a 50% chance of getting the first shot off at a Sherman moving fast into position 750m away in optimum weather conditions, in fact it's stretching credibility somewhat to justify the nine times the static Sherman was beaten to the draw, however it's a lot better than it being a coin flip, as it is for the PzIV.

I'm going to set up the same test for CMFI, with the PzIV G (late) versus the Sherman M4 (mid).

[stikkypixie]

I set up a test as shown in the attached pictures, the Sherman was static, and the PzIV was ordered to move fast onto the road into the Shermans LOS, stopping at a distance of 750m from the Sherman.

The crews were Regular, the setting was Elite, the weather was clear, cool, no wind, and dry, and the time was 12:00 noon.

Both moving tanks were given a cover arc and a 20 second delay to allow the turret to rotate to the correct facing, and to make the tank move onto the road at around the 30 second mark.

I ran the test 50 times for the static Sherman then swapped the roles, and ran the test 50 times for the static PzIV.

The results were telling.

When the Sherman was static, it got the first confirmed sighting and consequently fired the first shot 41 times out of the 50 tests.

When the PzIV was static, it got the first confirmed sighting and consequently fired the first shot 25 times out of the 50 tests.

So, if further tests confirm these results, a static PzIVH has no spotting advantage over a tank that moves into its LOS, but the Sherman does.

I will perform another 50 tests for each situation, but the initial results indicate that the PzIVH has to be tweaked somewhat, also i will try different Axis AFV's to see if the results are just specific to the PzIVH.

I have put the two .btt test files in a public dropbox folder at the link below if anyone wants to test it themselves, if they do please publish the results on this thread.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yc57ofm5n8d75uo/tUxIPPodjI

p.s.

The Sherman usually missed with it's first shot, but consistently achieved a confirmed sighting within 15 seconds of the PzIV coming to rest.

When the Sherman failed to get the first shot off, and was not hit itself, it fired within 5 seconds of the first PzIVH shot.

Do you happen to have the spotting times itself?

[noob]

Do you happen to have the spotting times itself?

Not in exact figures, i only noted down who got the first shot off, but as i said in my original post, the Sherman was getting a confirmed sighting in the vast majority of the tests within 15 seconds of the PzIV moving into LOS, which i thought was about right.

Run the test yourself, the test scenarios are available to download at the link.

[stikkypixie]

Not in exact figures, i only noted down who got the first shot off, but as i said in my original post, the Sherman was getting a confirmed sighting in the vast majority of the tests within 15 seconds of the PzIV moving into LOS, which i thought was about right.

No problem, I know how much work these things are. Still have to do some myself. I was wondering because, it's a very binary thing spotting. And if say the Sherman spotted the Pz IV by about a second faster, it would seem less spectacular than 41 out 50 times, although not much .

[noob]

No problem, I know how much work these things are. Still have to do some myself. I was wondering because, it's a very binary thing spotting. And if say the Sherman spotted the Pz IV by about a second faster, it would seem less spectacular than 41 out 50 times, although not much .

Even if there was only a second difference, the static tank should pretty much always get the first shot off, which the static Sherman test confirms, i will post the results of another 50 tests for each tank within 24 hours.

[dieseltaylor]

Iam both pleased and saddened. Pleased at the work that noob has done and the confirmation that my feelings about the armour module is right. Saddened that BF got it wrong. And saddened that BF are not more up-front with the community.

Vauxhall making the first Churchills

A leaflet from the manufacturer was added to the User Handbook which stated that it had great confidence in the fundamental design of the tank but that the model had been put into production without time for proper honing and that improvements would be made in time.

“ ....Fighting vehicles are urgently required, and instructions have been received to proceed with the vehicle as it is rather than hold up production.

All those things which we know are not as they should be will be put right... ” The document then covered for each area of the tank affected, the fault, precautions to avoid the fault and what was being done to correct the problem.

[noob]

Iam both pleased and saddened. Pleased at the work that noob has done and the confirmation that my feelings about the armour module is right. Saddened that BF got it wrong. And saddened that BF are not more up-front with the community.

Vauxhall making the first Churchills

Everytime you make a comment diesel, i hear the voice of Alec Guinness playing the part of George Smiley

I have to defend BF though, they are always answering questions and posting comments on threads, that's one of BF's many virtues, so i can't see how they have not been upfront, i mean it's entirely reasonable that they might have missed a flaw in the game, things like that are inevitable, especially with such a small company.

[dieseltaylor]

George Smiley!

Whilst it is true what you say that they do post we also have the flipside where we are not aware what they [really] acknowledge is a problem and are seeking a solution. Would we be wasting time on making trials if we knew they were addressing this point?

My mention of the Churchill and Vauxhall acknowledging faults was absolutely on the mark. The game as first shipped had an armour module that was so laughably wrong that only an idiot could have failed to notice that the tanks were not performing as WW2 tanks did but as modern tanks. If they had owned up to this one might have not felt so insulted.

Anyway more tests should [!] should show if it is tank specific.

[speedkills]

Hello,

These findings are interesting and also do confirm somewhat that there is some type of issue with the PIV as I've experienced before. I wonder if it its the same with all the different models? I tend to avoid using them now as having these things happen I get the feeling that when fielding one it has some type of defect with it.

If I use them it is for very close infantry support or a mile away in a hull down position, just no confidence to engage enemy armor with it.

[slysniper]

Good job, interesting test results. It does appear you are on to something as to these tanks not being equal as to spotting ability.

Plus some testing that has shown moving tanks can spot very well, (too well) there appears to be multible issues that can be causing the problems as to spotting and the unrealistic results that we see in the game.

As for attacking BF because it is not perfect to ones opinion as to what it should be. Grow up, they are about the only company trying to provide you with this type of product, and make, many efforts to meet the never ending demands of the users.

Try you attitude with other designers and see where it gets you. At least BF makes efforts to improve and meet some of the items we want.

[c3k]

noob,

Your test, as interesting as it is, does NOT test the same criteria for the two tanks.

Bear with me while I criticize (in the better meaning of the word) what you've done.

The stationary Sherman is spotting with all crewmembers facing towards the PzIV. This is a Sherman -> PzIV test.

(I assume when you say you swap positions, that you literally do that. That the PzIV sits on the road and awaits the Sherman which uses the same delay and covered arc command as the PzIV had used.)

With a PzIV sitting on the road, you have all the PzIV crewmembers trying to spot a Sherman. This is a PzIV -> Sherman test.

PzIV -> Sherman is NOT comparable to Sherman -> PzIV

If you want to compare actual spotting ability, you'd need to set up a blue on blue (or red on red) test of the second iteration.

PzIV -> Sherman AND Sherman -> Sherman: this would be an apples to apples test.

(Or, if you'd prefer, Sherman -> PzIV AND PzIV -> PzIV.)

If you're testing the spotting time and first shot times of the stationary tank, why have the target tank cover arc towards the stationary tank? Why not keep it facing sideways? I'm curious about that aspect of your test setup.

Thanks for doing these tests and sharing them.

Ken

[Redwolf]

Redwolf was being sarcastic i think

No, I remember that one of the many threads on the same topic had Steve say that (some of) this is being done so that there is (a) any hope of the programmed opponent doing well and ( so that the otherwise existing requirement to make player tanks scoot and shoot doesn't lead to all kinds of control problems including too much clicking in real time, inability to control in Wego and lots of traffic jams with automatic movement path invention on part of the TacAI.

Think about it: is the current game in a state that you could implement a realistic scoot-and-shoot, formation-wide with half covering, half moving, and have the UI support for it?

Simply dropping accuracy on part of the mover wouldn't do it. You would need support for stopping-to-fire in both the programmed opponent and the UI, and you would have to solve the problem of the game still inventing movement paths around standing friendly units. That's a lot more code than one variable.

[Baneman]

I don't quite understand this aspect of your critique :

The stationary Sherman is spotting with all crewmembers facing towards the PzIV. This is a Sherman -> PzIV test.

With a PzIV sitting on the road, you have all the PzIV crewmembers trying to spot a Sherman. This is a PzIV -> Sherman test.

Then you say :

PzIV -> Sherman is NOT comparable to Sherman -> PzIV

Why not ?

In both tests, the stationary tank is spotting with all crewmembers - why are they not comparable ?

Unless you're saying that the game models height/profile differences between the 2 tanks into the spotting algorithm ?

[speedkills]

Think about it: is the current game in a state that you could implement a realistic scoot-and-shoot, formation-wide with half covering, half moving, and have the UI support for it?

I think you could pull this off in a WEGO.

Anyhow I think the main issue here is more with the PIV getting the short end of the stick regularly when trying to spot while stationary. For some reason this tank sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Redwolf]

I think you could pull this off in a WEGO.

Anyhow I think the main issue here is more with the PIV getting the short end of the stick regularly when trying to spot while stationary. For some reason this tank sticks out like a sore thumb.

No, having a move and shoot cycle at the most at a 2 minute frequency is neither useful nor realistic. Neither is stopping for a full 60 seconds for the shooting part. You would need a dedicated command for it, but that requires a solution for traffic jams first.

I wish somebody would find that Steve post about it.

[noob]

noob,

Your test, as interesting as it is, does NOT test the same criteria for the two tanks.

Bear with me while I criticize (in the better meaning of the word) what you've done.

The stationary Sherman is spotting with all crewmembers facing towards the PzIV. This is a Sherman -> PzIV test.

(I assume when you say you swap positions, that you literally do that. That the PzIV sits on the road and awaits the Sherman which uses the same delay and covered arc command as the PzIV had used.)

With a PzIV sitting on the road, you have all the PzIV crewmembers trying to spot a Sherman. This is a PzIV -> Sherman test.

PzIV -> Sherman is NOT comparable to Sherman -> PzIV

If you want to compare actual spotting ability, you'd need to set up a blue on blue (or red on red) test of the second iteration.

PzIV -> Sherman AND Sherman -> Sherman: this would be an apples to apples test.

(Or, if you'd prefer, Sherman -> PzIV AND PzIV -> PzIV.)

If you're testing the spotting time and first shot times of the stationary tank, why have the target tank cover arc towards the stationary tank? Why not keep it facing sideways? I'm curious about that aspect of your test setup.

Thanks for doing these tests and sharing them.

Ken

I'm trying to simulate a contact in a typical game, so i need to test red on blue, or more specifically, the unbuttoned CO's of each tank, as they, out of all the crew members, are going to spot an enemy tank first.

The reason i have a covered arc for the moving tank is to simulate what players do in a game, and that is to make sure the tank's unbuttoned CO is concentrating his view in the most likely direction of a suspected enemy location.

[noob]

I ran another 50 tests of the PzIVH (static) versus the M4 Sherman (static after moving fast) and the PzIVH got the first shot off 45 times out of 100, which means the PzIVH performed slightly worse in the last 50 tests than the first, which is adding weight to the probability of a spotting flaw for that particular vehicle, however i intend to run another 50 tests after i run 50 for the static Sherman.

[slysniper]

I ran another 50 tests of the PzIVH (static) versus the M4 Sherman (static after moving fast) and the PzIVH got the first shot off 45 times out of 100, which means the PzIVH performed slightly worse in the last 50 tests than the first, which is adding weight to the probability of a spotting flaw for that particular vehicle, however i intend to run another 50 tests after i run 50 for the static Sherman.

Did you word something wrong here.

your first test was 25 out of 50,

now you are saying 45 out of 50 on the second test and that it is worse.

Something is not clear here

[newlife]

45 out of 100. So 20 out of 50. I did the same thing you did the first time I read it.

[akd]

I'm trying to simulate a contact in a typical game

This inevitably leads to poor tests. Test should isolate single variables, otherwise the only thing the results can point to is more tests until the variables are isolated. Typical contacts are, of course, events involving many variables. Maybe these tests show there is something wrong with PzIV spotting. Or maybe they show something is wrong with M4 (late) visibility. Or maybe there is some other factor that is influencing the outcome.

Also first to shoot may not be a pure test of spotting speed as I believe there can be variable times to aim (but not sure on that).

so i need to test red on blue

Any tank type can be assigned to red or blue force.

FYI, this not to poo-poo your efforts. Your initial set of tests seem to show something odd is going. Repeating this same test probably isn't going to give you any more information. If your gut feeling is that something is wrong with the PzIV's ability to spot, set up a test that isolates that factor.