Large Caliber Shells sniping Infantry

[Grondoval]

Hello CM-Forums,

CM-Player since CMBB, first forum post ever ... nice ..

Its time to write about the one single thing I find a little bit strange when playing CMBN:

Infantry getting sniped (hit in the chest) by shells from anti tank guns or tanks.

It just happens so often (happened to me just now in Bois de Baughin; 400m; one guy just popps out of the grass; headshot by pak38) to ask the question: how common where direct body hits by large caliber shells and how often was it an intended (!) hit. I know AP-shells could be very precise but trying to shoot a person with it... I dont know... it feels like anti tank guns are beeing abused as long range snipers..

Greetings

Grondoval

[A Canadian Cat]

how common where direct body hits by large caliber shells and how often was it an intended (!) hit. I know AP-shells could be very precise but trying to shoot a person with it... I dont know...

I have no idea about how frequent that kind of thing was, but how often are you seeing this? I think I have seen it twice and once of those was a tank commander when the enemy missed just slightly high.

it feels like anti tank guns are beeing abused as long range snipers.

There is always the chance that some poor soul will be directly in the round's path. I think it is much more likely that the AT gun is aiming area fire at the spot where they spotted enemy infantry.

[Grondoval]

I have no idea about how frequent that kind of thing was, but how often are you seeing this?

I played a mission a couple of weeks ago. Jagdpanthers vs Churchills, cant remember the name though. In this mission it happened at least 5 times that my Jagdpanther shot (one-hit in the body) some dismounted english crewmen with AP-Shells at over 150m even though I ordered to attack light with the ball-mount MG34. In total something like this happened to me at least 10 times...

[Alan8325]

I see it happen regularly as well. Seems like it would be a very rare occurrence in reality. Maybe the way AT weapon accuracy works in CM is that weapons have some chance of being directly on target, as in no deviation from dead center, and then this gets applied to infantry targets as well.

Looks pretty funny, but more often than this occurs I see AT weapons have some difficulty hitting infantry in open ground by consistently firing past them and hitting in the field well behind them when in reality the weapon crew would probably aim just a bit lower to hit the ground under them. Overall I think the funny few casualties from "chest hits" might just about account for gun crews maybe aiming too high when directly targeting infantry.

It would be nice to see it made to look a little more realistic if it isn't too much work but I'm not holding my breath.

[agusto]

In this mission it happened at least 5 times that my Jagdpanther shot (one-hit in the body) some dismounted english crewmen with AP-Shells at over 150m

At 150 meters this isnt unrealistic to happen from a thoretical point of view, although i think IRL it was more likely that the tank gunner would fire an HE shell aimed at the ground next to the infantry target or use the MG.

[Grondoval]

Just happened again in Bois de Baughin. Same PAK38. This time the target was running...

I would understand if the PAK would fire the HE-shell in the ground in front of the target. But now it just kills the man, flys through him and explodes somewhere behind him in the wild blue yonder...

[womble]

Yep, it happens all the time. I haven't bothered checking whether the shooter picked AP or HE, but it seems quite reasonable that "sometimes" a high shot misses the ground due to a grazing angle (or misses the building by going through a window, and then exploiting the fact that the game doesn't account for the far side of buildings...) and happens to intersect some hapless pTruppe's pixel volume.

My personal observer bias is that 57mm ATGs are particularly guilty of this.

[Grondoval]

Okay, a THIRD time now in Bois de Baughin.

And this one is the most obvious ive ever seen. Fraps video incoming!

Guy is lying on the ground. Shell from Pak38 grazing the grass 1m above ground, sniping the prone guy in the head and flying off map without ever touching the ground. From 400m!

EDIT: http://youtu.be/h0QIzYubVSg

[c3k]

Thanks for the posts!

Keep the examples coming.

Thanks,

Ken

[sburke]

when I have seen this it is generally because the AS itself is not in LOS/LOF of the gun, but the infantry unit is once spotted (usually standing but sometimes kneeling). So the tile can not be fired at.

[womble]

when I have seen this it is generally because the AS itself is not in LOS/LOF of the gun, but the infantry unit is once spotted (usually standing but sometimes kneeling). So the tile can not be fired at.

I have to say that doesn't match what I've seen. The best example of it not matching is when a 57mm sniped at a team in the upper window of a barn. The memory I have in my head gives the ATG a clear shot at the full face of the barn; it might not have been able to target the ground floor, but the hay loft, certainly.

[Grondoval]

Thanks for the posts!

Keep the examples coming.

Thanks,

Ken

Another example from the same mission (Bois de Baughin):

http://youtu.be/2-O2S7J-sg0

As soon as im more firm with the editor im doing a more professional test series.

[Michael Emrys]

I've seen it at least one or two dozen times in the last two years and I don't play that much. Probably there have been an equal number of such events that I didn't spot. Usually, it has seemed to me that the gun wasn't aiming at the guy who got popped, but at a valid target behind him and he just got in the way. That strikes me as completely realistic.

The thing that bugs me is tanks deliberately firing HE from the main gun at single guys. I may be mistaken, but that seems to me to be a waste of a limited resource (unless the guy is armed with something that is an immediate and urgent threat). Historically, wouldn't he be brought under fire from one of the MGs instead? Valid targets for HE would be mortars, MG nests, clusters of men, soft vehicles, things like that.

Michael

[Grondoval]

Usually, it has seemed to me that the gun wasn't aiming at the guy who got popped, but at a valid target behind him and he just got in the way.

Hello. Thanks for your feedback!

In the videos ive posted there was no target behind the guy who was shot (because it slopes there). The Gun deliberately aimed at a specific person in the squad and shot him with pinpoint accuracy.

One case (unfortunatly no video) one BAR-gunner who was ahead of the squad spotted german infantry, stands up, firing and got directly hit by the PAK38 within 5 seconds.

The tank case is not a whole lot different from this. As said tanks are using shells WAY too generously and aiming them at single persons (often killing them through body hit rather than blast or shrapnel)

[Childress]

The thing that bugs me is tanks deliberately firing HE from the main gun at single guys.

How does the tank crew know it's only a single guy?

[Baneman]

How does the tank crew know it's only a single guy?

Because they spot so much better than anything else

[Lethaface]

Okay, a THIRD time now in Bois de Baughin.

And this one is the most obvious ive ever seen. Fraps video incoming!

Guy is lying on the ground. Shell from Pak38 grazing the grass 1m above ground, sniping the prone guy in the head and flying off map without ever touching the ground. From 400m!

EDIT: http://youtu.be/h0QIzYubVSg

It seems that is another small calibre shot that takes out the soldier in question. He rolls over when the pak shell goes by and then it looks like he is hit by a smaller tracer round. Could be wrong though, since I can only see it from one angle.

[Michael Emrys]

How does the tank crew know it's only a single guy?

That's not my problem.

Seriously, if they see a single guy running across an open field, it's a reasonable assumption.

Michael

[MikeyD]

I recall one anecdote. A 57mm AT team was told to take out a German sniper holed-up a church tower. One round brought the tower unexpectedly crashing. The crew feared they were going to get into big trouble because they had fired a bootleg 6 pdr HE round they had illegally traded with a passing British unit. So AT guns were indeed used to snipe targets that were causing problems for infantry. Most of the time under most circumstances individual pop-up infantry targets were all there were to aim at.

[Grondoval]

So AT guns were indeed used to snipe targets that were causing problems for infantry. Most of the time under most circumstances individual pop-up infantry targets were all there were to aim at.

Im fine with that IF the gun-crew intends to kill the single guy by blast, fragmentation, debris or whatever. But shooting the gun so precise that the HE-shell hits him DIRECTLY in the chest/head/body is not very believable.

As said i will be doing some tests regarding anti tank guns aiming at the body of single infantrymen rather than the ground they are standing on.

IMHO gunners aimed at the body of individuals up to a caliber of around 20mm. With 37mm or 50mm HE i would target the immidiate surrounding to bring blast and shrapnel to bear. As it stands now it seems that large caliber tank guns still aiming at center mass of individual soldiers regardless what caliber it is.

[Baneman]

...

IMHO gunners aimed at the body of individuals up to a caliber of around 20mm. With 37mm or 50mm HE i would target the immidiate surrounding to bring blast and shrapnel to bear. As it stands now it seems that large caliber tank guns still aiming at center mass of individual soldiers regardless what caliber it is.

The same effect ( as a result of the "aim at centre mass" system - in my opinion ) can be seen with regard to trucks and jeeps. A fully laden truck hosed by an HMG should have the bulk of its cargo killed or wounded, but you seldom see that because the HMG is targetting "the truck" first ie. engine, chassis, etc.

Similarly, I've seen 2 squads practically wiped out by a jeep with its half-squad occupants - because the passengers are shooting at the enemy soldiers - but they are shooting at the jeep, not its totally exposed passengers.

[Grondoval]

Okay there is something wrong. I did some pre-tests in the Editor (Bocage Lanes; you know it):

- Pak38

- 400m

- American Rifle-Squad Target

- Lanes are perfectly flat

- Gun crews mixed HE and AP for some reason

Impressions: http://youtu.be/9xZOx2m8UTg

Around 15 shells where fired (I know, not enough to proof anything, but its a preview; some more statistically backed tests incoming)

90% of the casualtys inflicted are not because of shrapnel or blast but because of the shell hit the body directly.

You may say: okay its flat, how could a prone target be hit otherwise.

I say: The guns are shooting with pinpoint accuracy at 400m, and aiming their HE-shells center mass of the target soldiers.

Misses in terms of the body beeing missed (like it should be) where rare. They were more rare than complete misses.

[CrackSabbath]

For what it's worth, I've had it happen in Shock Force as well.

[agusto]

To be honest, i am not sure if that is really unrealistic in terms of whether the gun is capable of hitting with such accuracy or not. Keep in mind that these weapons were high quality products fitted with magnifying sights that were quite sophisticated for their time. Under firing range conditions for example, the Tiger Is 88 had a hit probability above 90% at 1200 meters, AFAIK. Directly hitting a prone static soldier at 400m with a PaK 38 under firing range conditions seems legit to me. But i agree with you on that the gun crew should rather be trying to hit the ground next to the prone soldiers with HE shells rather than trying to score direct hits.

[MikeyD]

Instead of a Pak try the little Leig 18, something that fires in a parabolic arc instead flat trajectory. A Pak aims at a flat piece of ground and overshoots by an inch. What does the round do? It passes through the prone soldier and lands 20 feet downrange.