Gustav Line QB AAR - Peanut Gallery: No GaJ, No Bil

[Michael Emrys]

People like to show off how smart they are. It's a disease endemic to the human race, and it probably does about as much harm over all as any other disease on the planet.

Michael

[Sublime]

Ok...am I wrong or are Steiner and Kettle giving away information in a discrete manner??? It is so irritating...why can't some people just be quiet...I did notice Kettle gave an apology which is good but then it seems that Steiner followed right up with his own assessment...

No you.re not wrong. I noticed Steiner doing it since the start. He probably just doesn't want the Nazi's to lose. lol!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Steiner says he hasn't read Bil's thread. If that is so he isn't giving away information, he's just giving a lot of advice. I've noticed people giving suggestions in AARs before, but typically not as much. I'm not sure if that's verboten or not.

[Apocal]

ME QBs split the VPs 40% for the VLs (divided up between the locations, I assume, but have no idea in what proportion) and 60% for casualties inflicted.

Ultimately, I don't think the VLs are going to be terribly relevant in this case; armor on both sides, long lines of sight and not much infantry AT means that whoever wins the armor war is going to be able to dominate the fighting afterwards.

[Wodin]

Ouch..poor Bil.

[Offshoot]

It's intriguing how GaJ was regretting having sent his tanks on walkabout to his left but from Bil's latest description it sounds like it is the presence of those that has caused him to abort his attack on that flank (especially after losing a Sherman). Will GaJ be able to reposition his tanks to thwart Bil's new attack on his right? This battle is teaching me the necessity to have eyes on the enemy. I think GaJ is about to have two of Bil's platoons traipsing over one of his TRPs (in the ruined buildings) but will he see them in time?

[c3k]

If Bil continues to pull infantry back and load them on trucks, he'll be very vulnerable. The sightlines are confusing to me. I don't know where he'll be loading up and where the destination (and unloading) location is meant to be. However, if he's using trucks to save time, he'll need to load pretty close to the front. THAT could be a mistake...

Ken

[Lanzfeld]

Ouch..poor Bil.

Yeah.....spotty spotting rears it's questionable head here.

Well, I guess it's not spotting exactly because they were spotted but just not shot at.

[GerryCMBB]

Why would Bil's tank not fire for 30 secs when he has spotted the Pz IV and the PzIV got off a shot very quickly? Has it to do with better optics? Better crews?

Thanks,

Gerry

[Michael Emrys]

Why would Bil's tank not fire for 30 secs when he has spotted the Pz IV and the PzIV got off a shot very quickly? Has it to do with better optics? Better crews?

Crew experience/leadership? I have posted a question to Bil about the experience level of that crew.

If that does not provide an answer, then one has to think about the moving vs. non-moving spotting advantage that players have been reporting. This is just one incident and one should not make too much of it, but there seem to have been a lot of those.

Michael

[sburke]

Crew experience/leadership? I have posted a question to Bil about the experience level of that crew.

If that does not provide an answer, then one has to think about the moving vs. non-moving spotting advantage that players have been reporting. This is just one incident and one should not make too much of it, but there seem to have been a lot of those.

Michael

It doesn't appear that spotting was the issue. He had spotted it, the problem seemed more of the aiming...aiming....aiming.....ouch Variety. It would be nice to get a good look at that save and maybe turn it in for BF to look at. Bil is certainly capable of doing so. Maybe some other bug will be incovered.

[GerryCMBB]

Pretty sure I had one of those spotting-aiming sequences with a Sherman in an overwatch position against a PzIV for 10s of seconds and the Sherman didn't fire. But the PzIV did.

Gerry

[Alan8325]

I remember a post by Steve saying that LOS and LOF for a unit are not the same. A unit may get LOS but not have LOF, which leads to the aiming-firing cycle without actually firing. Imagine how often this problem would crop up if we had gun elevation/depression limits.

[Andrew H.]

I remember a post by Steve saying that LOS and LOF for a unit are not the same. A unit may get LOS but not have LOF, which leads to the aiming-firing cycle without actually firing. Imagine how often this problem would crop up if we had gun elevation/depression limits.

I wonder if the problem is worse in the Sherman because it's so tall - i.e., there are more situations in which the commander can see something from 10' above ground level that the gunner can't see at 5' above GL than there would be if the commander were at 8' and the gunner at 5'.

Concerning the battle itself, it seems like there are three important elements:

1. The terrain. The terrain has little cover and little concealment. It's also difficult to move in, although there are a lot of mountains to hide behind.

2. Armor. Bil has (well, had) more than twice as much armor as GaJ (now he only has twice as much). Because the terrain is relatively open, armor will be particularly effective, and somewhat safer than would be the case if there were more trees and more covered approaches.

3. Spotting. Bil seems to be doing a better job than GaJ at spotting, and it seems to be a more of a priority for him.

GaJ bought artillery, but is having trouble making effective use of it, in part because his spotters keep getting spotted.

I think this battle will end not in a big decisive battle, but with GaJ's forces being picked off squad by squad by Bil's tanks (maybe the Stuarts) while the Pz IVs are bottled up by the Shermans.

However, the terrain is so unforgiving that a little bit of bad luck could change things - if Bil lost another Sherman, or wandered across a TRP with too much infantry, or GaJ got a good bead on vulnerable units with artillery, things could change dramatically. But right now I'm expecting GaJ's forces to be whittled down by armor in places where he won't be able to respond effectively.

[Alan8325]

I wonder if the problem is worse in the Sherman because it's so tall - i.e., there are more situations in which the commander can see something from 10' above ground level that the gunner can't see at 5' above GL than there would be if the commander were at 8' and the gunner at 5'.

Unless there was a major change to the LOS system between CMSF and CMBN, LOS is still drawn roughly from the center of vehicles and not from individual crew members or optics suites. This becomes painfully apparent when trying to use ATGM vehicles in CMSF. I believe LOF actually comes from the weapon itself whereas the LOS calculations have to be constantly done and having multiple points of LOS generation on a vehicle would drastically stress the CPU...or something.

Bil's tank had LOS on GaJ's tank but the LOF was probably just a hair lower. Not entirely unrealistic, but realistically the crew would make a hasty adjustment to the tank's position to get that line of fire.

[Sublime]

But what about the famous post where Steve explained they couldn't figure out (whilst in development of CMBN) why the Tiger had a weird spotting issue - then realized the commander within the tank was turned sideways and thus not looking out his sight?

[Michael Emrys]

I remember a post by Steve saying that LOS and LOF for a unit are not the same. A unit may get LOS but not have LOF, which leads to the aiming-firing cycle without actually firing.

Bil was in a hull-down position and was hit in the turret. There is a possibility that he was a little too hull-down and the gun didn't have a clear LOF.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I wonder if the problem is worse in the Sherman because it's so tall - i.e., there are more situations in which the commander can see something from 10' above ground level that the gunner can't see at 5' above GL than there would be if the commander were at 8' and the gunner at 5'.

Except that I don't think there is very much more difference between the TC's and gunner's elevation in a Sherman than with any other comparable tank, say a Tiger. Between TC and driver maybe, but TC and gunner are in the same turret.

Michael

[Wodin]

But what about the famous post where Steve explained they couldn't figure out (whilst in development of CMBN) why the Tiger had a weird spotting issue - then realized the commander within the tank was turned sideways and thus not looking out his sight?

I remember that post.

[Sublime]

So now I want to know - is what Alan thinks correct? Or is it drawn from the crew members as Steve said years ago?

[Offshoot]

This is the closest I could find with a quick search (was looking for info only from the horse's mouth):

"Spotting happens by each crewemember's eyes having a chance of seeing things based on various conditions. For vehicles the most important thing is if they are unbuttoned or buttoned. Next is if the tank commander has a cupola (and some are better than others). Next is what sorts of vision blocks and optics are present, which includes visual arcs. Lastly, number of eyeballs able to see out at any given time." ( http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96642&highlight=tanks+crew+spotting&page=3 )

Still not 100% unambiguous, but I think that the idea that each crew member spots individually (rather than as a cumulative 'number of eyes') is reinforced by another post:

"Yes, while they are unbuttoned spotting goes up for those positions ...From a gameplay perspective it's better to have the Commander more exposed because it's easier to see from higher camera angles and from longer distances." ( http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1231306&highlight=spotting#post1231306 )

At least it would seem the commander is separate for LOS.

[Offshoot]

And some more (from the tiger commander looking sideways thread):

"At the range I was testing at the best chance of spotting was by the Commander. The other guys would have eventually figured it out, but without optics (gunner's sight is only good if you know what to look for) it should be much slower." ( http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94734&highlight=crew+spotting&page=2 )

[Andrew H.]

Except that I don't think there is very much more difference between the TC's and gunner's elevation in a Sherman than with any other comparable tank, say a Tiger. Between TC and driver maybe, but TC and gunner are in the same turret.

Michael

That's true - and I just looked at my Sherman book and the aiming telescope is near the midpoint of the turret. So it kind of comes down to how far out of the hatch the commander is. But it looks like the difference would be more like 3', and not much different between tanks. (Unless US TCs were taller...)

[Wodin]

Ouch..well looks like Bil just took out a Panzer...GaJ is in abit of trouble now I feel. I think he hesitated to much and didn't really know what to do..he wanted to move around the left and then he has sent units out piecemeal only to get chewed up..now shifting his tanks around in full view was asking for trouble, all the way through it seems Bil has had a better understanding of what he needs to do and quickly makes new plans and acts on them when needed.

[c3k]

^^^

Bil's knowledge (eyeballs on the enemy, TO&E peeking, at whatnot) has been the key. That, and a bit of patience. And luck.

FWIW, although I try not to peek at enemy unit titles, I do. (Iron mode is my preferred mode.) I NEVER try to reconstruct an enemy order of battle and try to suss out how many of what he may have left. That's not a criticism, or praise, of Bil, just a statement of how I play. Bil shows how important that information can be.

Ken