Annoying, unbelievable tank spotting

[Freyberg]

Spotting is interesting. Units share information. Having good command and communication can radically increase spotting information.

If a tank were engaging infantry at close range, I could well imagine the TC was keeping an eye out on all sides.

None of which is to say that there isn't a spotting bug, but I've had many situations where tank spotting was also pretty poor.

[Erwin]

I read that visibility from a buttoned WW2 tank was very limited.

Add in poor visibility factors such as night, smoke, woods, and being in a firefight, it does seem that a buttoned tank in CM2 has an uncanny ability to see inf that are either in ambush or sneaking up on it as if the AFV had thermal or night vision capability.

The "companion" issue (that am unclear if it was ever addressed) is/was that moving tanks seem able to better spot other tanks that are stationary and waiting in ambush.

[agusto]

One thing I find especially interesting. I reduced (ahem) the 5 men crew of the tank to 4 which gave nearly the same spotting results - a bit slower but same pattern. Reducing them to 3 made the tank suddenly blind to the back. Unfortunately with 3 men they refuse to open up...

So I guess CM puts one pair of eyes on each side as long as it can which means it can spot in all directions if you have >=4 men. I have never sat in a tank so I don't know if that makes sense or not.

In theory this makes sense. IRL each crewmember would have a sector assigned for observation. The driver for example observes and reports contacts from 10-12 o clock, radio/hull gunner observes & reports from 12 to 14 o clock, the gunner observes in the direction the turret is facing (or anywhere else if he has a rotating periscope too) and the TC observes where he thinks that it might be a good idea. So if the crew is reduced to 3 (hull gunner/driver/gunner) and and the turrent is turned to 12 o clock, it is absolutely correct if the tank is blind to his rear because simply no one is able to look in that direction if the gunner keeps sitting in his seat next to the cannon. If all 5 crewmebers are alive, then it is absolutely plausible that the TC spots something that is sneaking up behind the tank.

Interesting results, however. This implies that tank spotting is more complex than i thought and that there are actually virtual eyes looking through periscopes. Very cool, very cool.

The problem in this discussion is IMO that the crew attention isnt focusing on the direction where the fire is coming from if they are engaging with the enemy. As it was shown in the opening post, the TC still observes to the rear even if the tank is involved in a firefight to his front. That is the problem, not that fully crewed tanks in general have the ability to spot targets to their rear. I am sure BFC is able to fix this.

[A Canadian Cat]

Interesting results, however. This implies that tank spotting is more complex than i thought and that there are actually virtual eyes looking through periscopes. Very cool, very cool.

Very cool indeed. Steve verified that this was the case way, way back with this interesting post: Some bugs are more interesting than others

[slysniper]

The "companion" issue (that am unclear if it was ever addressed) is/was that moving tanks seem able to better spot other tanks that are stationary and waiting in ambush.

That is not true, I ran test on that, A stationary tank has the advantage to spotting first. but the adv time difference between the two made it too common of a event that the moving tank does spot and fire first a little too often for it to feel correct.

The real problem with this is that placing the non moving tank in parcial concealment did not seem to help or affect spotting in the least.

So likely part of the problem with spotting is how the game functions to be able to see through concealment. it shows up in many unusual ways.

[Erwin]

Good to know. If that's the case, I agree with your suggestion ss.

[Apocal]

I suppose I could try some tests, but before I start digging, I have to ask: is it at all possible that the Shreck team was spotted by a third unit and the tank just happened to be the first and only to actually engage?

[Vanir Ausf B]

If you look at the test results poesel71 posted, one apparent issue that is not getting any attention is that all else being equal -- open terrain, no movement -- tanks are more adept at spotting infantry than they are at spotting other tanks:

That is an average of 46.8 Shermans and 56.5 rifle squads spotted after one minute.

[Redwolf]

If you look at the test results poesel71 posted, one apparent issue that is not getting any attention is that all else being equal -- open terrain, no movement -- tanks are more adept at spotting infantry than they are at spotting other tanks:

It has been getting my attention. This problem is around since CMSF.

[Collingwood]

This is why I like to save every turn before executing it. If something comes up that I think is strange then I can re-run it multiple times - thus satisfying the "will it always happen" vs "was I unlucky" question. I really would like to see this turn re-run several times and see what the outcome is.

[Freyberg]

Playing in iron mode, where spotting is so clear to see, you don't get the impression it's unrealistic. In fact, awareness of enemy units seems to owe more to communication with other friendly units.

[Wodin]

Would be cool if BF steppe din and gave us abit more insight into spotting. I'm sure I remember during testing of CMBN they couldn't understand why a tank had spotted something and then realised it was to do with the facing of one of the crew..or something like that..it seen to hint at a rather complex mechanic which took into consideration each crew member and where they where looking etc.

[A Canadian Cat]

I'm sure I remember during testing of CMBN they couldn't understand why a tank had spotted something and then realised it was to do with the facing of one of the crew..or something like that..it seen to hint at a rather complex mechanic which took into consideration each crew member and where they where looking etc.

Yep I searched for it and put it in post #54

Some bugs are more interesting than others

[Quintus Sertorius]

My anecdotal evidence is that I've successfully pulled off 'schreck ambushes dozens of times, but it doesn't always work.

[Wodin]

Thats the one mate..good find.

Yep I searched for it and put it in post #54

[A Canadian Cat]

I know I said I would not do it but I did

The key number her is 52%. Around half the tanks spotted the infantry as the approached on open ground covering 124m. I think it makes sense that after the infantry fire a panzerfaust or a panzershrek round the number of tanks spotting them would go up.

So the question is (after asking about the test itself :-) is: Should half the tanks spot infantry in the open running up behind them? I do not have that answer.

---8<---

Here is what I did. I created a scenario with 10 test lanes separated by a row of high wall and row of high bocage 1600m long. In each lane there is a road with a 50mm AT gun at one end and a Sherman at the other end. Parallel to the road and aways back is a line of bocage with some gaps. The terrain behind this bocage is 5m lower than the rest of the lane. This is to keep the tank from accidentally spotting infantry not part of the test. Each of these staging areas has a platoon HQ in command of a Panzershrek team and a tank hunter team. All of the players have regular training, normal motivation and 0 leader ship - tanks included.

The idea is the tanks have a threat that is not dangerous enough to KO them but cannot really be ignored either. The plan is to run the test two ways - one the Panzershrek team firing from cover and the tank hunter team trying to run up behind the tank. The tank hunters start concealed but have to cover open ground to get to the tank.

I then setup orders and saved two games.

1. PanzerShrek test - Tanks start out buttoned up. Shrek team moves up to the bocage and fires at a range of around 124m at the tank. Monitor the tank to see if they spot the Shrek team
   
2. Panzerfaust test - Tanks start out buttoned up. The tank hunter team moves with a quick command across that same 124m of ground with a slow move at the end right behind the tank.
   

In both tests the infantry start out at the tanks 7 o'clock. The tanks are live and free to react so the sometimes move. Once I had to drop a test because it moved so far that the infantry were suddenly in front of the tank - not what I am testing here.

Let me start by saying the panzershrek test was boring. I only ran the 10 lane test twice - so sample size of 20 and no tank ever spotted the team before they fired and after they fired only 3 tanks spotted them. Some of the Shrek teams were pretty awful shots but what can you do.

I ran the panzerfaust test three times so a sample size of 29 (throw one away). This was more interesting. The tanks spotted the assaulting infantry to their rear 52% of the time before they fired a shot. An additional 14% of tanks spotted their assailants after a shot was fired.

Here is what the orders looked like for the tank hunter team:

Watching 30 different runs I saw all kinds of variations. It never played out exactly the same way twice. The variations went all the way from the tank spotted the infantry as they cross the open ground and gunned them both down. This example was fun. Even though the tank spotted them coming it only saw one guy. After the tank took him out the other tank hunter recovered and managed to sneak up on the tank. He managed to kill the tank with a panzerfaust. Yes, I adjusted orders as needed to resume the assault or get the tank back on the road.

All the way to the other extreme. This assaulting team managed to cover the entire distance, take out the tank and gun down the crew and they were never spotted - not even by the crew as they ran for their lives.

The whole package - the results Excel file, the raw scenario plus the two orders all ready to go saved games can be found here: TankSpottingResults.zip

Download it. Run it yourself - add more runs to the sample size whatever you guys want.

[Quintus Sertorius]

I know I said I would not do it but I did

Nice job!

Do you have any preliminary conclusions? Or are you unsure what to think?

[A Canadian Cat]

Wow I am glad someone is ready. I was beginning to wonder. Thanks

Here I did some testing around one of the most bitterly complained about subjects and I got no response at all. I figured some one would at least tell me my test method was wrong

Do you have any preliminary conclusions? Or are you unsure what to think?

I do not know what to think. To me it looks like running up behind a tank to kill it is a 50 50 kind of action. I have no idea if that is reasonable or not.

My main trouble with it is that is when do you ever get to do that in game? I mean there would be someone else around. Another tank some infantry. Any one of them would spot you before you made it to the tank.

[noob]

Once I had to drop a test because it moved so far that the infantry were suddenly in front of the tank

You can make the tanks immobile in the scenario editor.

[76mm]

I had hoped to look at your tests, and maybe run some more, this weekend but got tied up with other things. Hopefully next weekend.

[A Canadian Cat]

You can make the tanks immobile in the scenario editor.

I had not thought of that. Good idea. It was not really a big issue I just kept the US tanks set with orders to hold their ground and move back. It was only this once that I had a test invalidated.

It would have been less work though

[wolf66]

I do not know what to think. To me it looks like running up behind a tank to kill it is a 50 50 kind of action. I have no idea if that is reasonable or not.

My main trouble with it is that is when do you ever get to do that in game? I mean there would be someone else around. Another tank some infantry. Any one of them would spot you before you made it to the tank.

But the example the OP brought up wasn't about running up behind a tank - they sneaked there and were stationary when spotted ... ast least that is how I read it ......

[A Canadian Cat]

True.

The first half of my test was to see if infantry sneaking up with concealment would get spotted and they did not. As expected.

Then I tried to see what would happen with no concealment. I think I showed how well tanks spot behind them selves when infantry are not concealed.

I guess the test lanes could be used to conduct a third variation and have the Shrek team crawl through the bocage gap and see if they get spotted.

[poesel]

IMHO you should try to have fewer variables.

If you want to see if a frontal threat has an effect on spotting backwards then I suggest you place a stationary AT team with a tight CA behind the tank (50m?). Then you measure the average time it takes for the tank to spot the team.

Then you remove the AT gun (btw you could replace it by a 37mm gun and have it fire on the tank) and again measure the time for spotting.

If there is a significant difference then the threat affects spotting.

[Oddball_E8]

But the example the OP brought up wasn't about running up behind a tank - they sneaked there and were stationary when spotted ... ast least that is how I read it ......

I do not believe they were sneaking... not really.

How can this possibly happen? The shreck team is wearing CAMO fer crying outloud, were hunting...etc etc.

And when you use the hunt command, you are moving slowly, almost sneaking but not actually sneaking.

What DOES happen is that you stop as soon as you see an enemy contact, and in this case they were doing all that in front of the cover, not behind it.

And the game does not account for cover that is behind you (ie. no silhouetting in this game yet) so for all intents and purposes these guys were moving towards the tank, upright and without cover.

Sure, they were behind the tank (well, to the left-rear) but they were still out in the open as far as the game is concerned.

One thing that you have to unlearn pretty fast is all the training you have had about cover and concealment in the real world.

Putting yourself infront of a bush or wooded area will not aid you in the slightest. You have to actually have the cover between you and the target for it to work.

Also, wearing camo has no actual effect in the game. Nor does having camo on your tank.