HistoryLover Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 Badger Dog, very insightful and appreciated. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I don't know what "original" means in the context of the M4A2E8 version of the Sherman I trained on... Sighting telescope was zeroed at 10x10 foot target at 1,000 yards (exactly measured), using “thread” taped in a cross pattern to front of barrel and sighting down the bore physically. Once done, it and the the Coaxial Browning .30 MG is aligned with wrenches to the same sight picture to master weapon (76mm). The sighting telescope in all our Shermans I trained on was "fixed" to that zeroing technique and the only way I (as a gunner) could scan, was to move the turret laterally with my hand wheel (power traverse wasn't granular enough for small movements) or elevate and depress the gun (and coax) with manual hand wheel. Sorry, I wasn't clear. It is my understanding that the Sherman gunner had 2 sights available to him: the direct-sight telescope M70F with 3x magnification and 13° field of view, and a periscope for observation. It is the observation periscope I was asking about because I have read that it enabled a quicker target hand-off from the commander to the gunner than with single sight vehicles such as the Panther. ... Aside from his periscope gun sight ( which is excellent), the gunner has no other type of observation device. He is therefore practically blind,* one of the greatest shortcomings of the Panther. * The gunsight with two magnification stages is remarkably clear and has its field of view clear in the center. The gunsight enables observation of a target and shells out to over 3000 meters. Once the commander has located a target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner. http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/ EDIT: Steven Zaloga says the gunners sight on the 76mm Shermans was M71D, which had 5x magnification and 13° FOV. The gunner's roof-mounted periscope was an M4A1 periscope with a built-in M47A2 telescope (which had 1.44 X magnification and 9° FOV). "The unitary periscope was an advantage since it allowed the gunner to maintain situational awareness while the tank was traveling by observing the terrain and looking for targets; the Panther gunner was essentially blind until the tank halted. The periscope sight contained an aiming telescope, but against precision targets such as an enemy tank the Sherman gunner would switch to the M71D telescope." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Ian Leslie, this is also my main concern but to narrow the problem down, we must exclude as many variables as possible. OK good. I am sure you are not loosing sight of your main concern. I was just concerned that the test tweaking requested was not really going in the right direction. So if only the TCs remain for spotting and the hd TC cannot see a big silhoutte faster and better than the free standing TC the hd object, then this is more indicative where to look. And it maybe already narrows it down to the main problem. The spotting ability of the TCs. Here is the thing. You have already shown that the TC in the hull down tank is at a spotting disadvantage against the whole crew of a tank in the open. That points to issues. I see what you are saying: that tweaking the test so that TC in a hull down tank and TC in an out in the open tank could shed more light on things. After all we could have a problem with any single spotter having an easier time spotting just a turret over a whole tank - which would not be good. And / or we could have other crew members with too much visibility compared to the TC in general - which would also not be good. Carry on:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Ian, you are not wrong. In fact I bet in a real tank that the loader, radio operator, and driver rarely, if ever, are actively on the look out for enemy tanks. Good glad to hear I am in the right ball park on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Sorry, I wasn't clear. It is my understanding that the Sherman gunner had 2 sights available to him. My apologies partner ... I thought you were purely referencing the gunners sighting telescope.... Yes, the gunner's periscope was available, but it was next to useless unless stationary. In motion, one couldn't practically use it without all kinds of "pushing and pulling" the mount to try and keep a level view. When stationary, yes you could level it, then view through it, but like all of the optical peri's, it was a real challenge to see much, at least for my 18 year old eyes in those days .. We all mostly relied on the CC (hatch open, or cracked slightly open with wedge support), to use his bino's (stationary was really the most useful), in order to properly scan and locate targets. Spotting as part of a tank crew in this game is far too accurate and quick, as compared to the reality of what it was actually like for M4 type of tanks. I would assume that the same also applies to the German equipment, of course with variances in optic quality etc. Having said that (several times in the last 10 years), if it was modeled as a perfect real world M4 simulator, it would be absolutely boring in game action and playability. Yes I get as frustrated as any of the folks here when I see "stuff" that is either a physics impossibility on an M4, or simply wouldn't happen in real life, but..... It's just a game! .. and I love it for what it is, which is why it's held my short attention span for so many years ... Regards, Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I see what you are saying: that tweaking the test so that TC in a hull down tank and TC in an out in the open tank could shed more light on things. After all we could have a problem with any single spotter having an easier time spotting just a turret over a whole tank - which would not be good. And / or we could have other crew members with too much visibility compared to the TC in general - which would also not be good. To test spotting HD tanks vs non-HD tanks you could also use the same type of infantry to do the spotting vs HD and non-HD tanks. This eliminates the unknown numbers of spotters in the tank that does the spotting. Unless of course its a problem with the spotting FROM the tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HistoryLover Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 Badger Dog, would you say it is correct, that a buttoned down tank, moving in the field, is almost blind (to see small objects farther away)? (because the shaked observer's head moves chaotically against the optics? I imagine it's the same as when looking through binocs while driving with a car. But much worse. I remember that a veteran long time ago told me, that therefore tanks do not move all at the same time, when a threat is expected. For example, two are standing still in overwatch position, one is moving. I also read, that a tank in combat either moves at high speed, or is standing still. Would fit to the above thesis. Your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Badger Dog, would you say it is correct, that a buttoned down tank, moving in the field, is almost blind (to see small objects farther away)? (because the shaked observer's head moves chaotically against the optics? I imagine it's the same as when looking through binocs while driving with a car. But much worse. In an M4A2E8 Sherman, absolutely correct and your analogy is close, but it is even worse. We would always "stop" to scan for threats (in order .... foreground, middle ground, then distance), then resume moving to the next hull (or turret) down fire position, picking those stops out on the ground to our front, much like one clicks on movement points in the game. I remember that a veteran long time ago told me, that therefore tanks do not move all at the same time, when a threat is expected. For example, two are standing still in overwatch position, one is moving. I also read, that a tank in combat either moves at high speed, or is standing still. Would fit to the above thesis. Absolutely... the principle was mutual fire support and movement. One covers (and scans) while his wingman moves. Also, you never went over a crest you were behind in a hull (or turret down) position. You always "jockeyed", which means reverse off the fire position, reverse slightly sideways, then come over the crest in a different position getting the driver to minimize "oil smoke blowing" during the process. Kind of defeats the process when the bad guys can see puffs of smoke rising up in intervals as you move laterally behind the crest. It's actually quite funny to see from the other side when you observe this "choo choo" steam train effect with an inexperienced driver pumping up and down on the accelerator with complete ignorance as to the trail he was leaving. (An aside.. of course this effect isn't emulated in the game, but dust trails etc are.) The theory was that any AT threat that had observed you in your first fire position and "layed" their gun on you, would have to re-sight and re-lay that aim point while you were in motion coming over the crest in a different spot. Regards, Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HistoryLover Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wow, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wow, thanks! You're welcome ... An afterthought, based upon your original question ... It would a nice thing (command) to have where one could click on a movement end point, but it was one where it meant, move to the next position near that point on the ground that places the vehicle in a "hull down" position using the LOS relative to the mid point of it's front facing arc It would certainly save old eyes like mine a LOT of time checking each movement end point to ensure I was presenting as low a "front facing" silhouette as possible and not sitting exposed on open ground. I do miss the real world "turret down" observation, where one pulled up behind a crest or obstacle and stood on top of the turret, scanning ground ahead for threats, before hopping back down into the CC's hatch and creeping forward into a "hull down", repeating the scanning process again, then doing the "jockey" drill mentioned above. I'd certainly lose less tanks that way and maybe see the "bad guys" sooner than I do now. Also, it's a great way to execute a "troop ambush" on a force moving towards you. Regards, Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Absolutely... the principle was mutual fire support and movement. One covers (and scans) while his wingman moves. And it is a tribute to how good the game is that doing this is better than just rushing around. Also, you never went over a crest you were behind in a hull (or turret down) position. You always "jockeyed", which means reverse off the fire position, reverse slightly sideways, then come over the crest in a different position The theory was that any AT threat that had observed you in your first fire position and "layed" their gun on you, would have to re-sight and re-lay that aim point while you were in motion coming over the crest in a different spot. Interesting, that would be do able in game as well. I have done it from time to time. Must make it more of a staple tactic. I do miss the real world "turret down" observation, where one pulled up behind a crest or obstacle and stood on top of the turret, scanning ground ahead for threats, before hopping back down into the CC's hatch and creeping forward into a "hull down", Now that would be cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Interesting, that would be do able in game as well. I have done it from time to time. Must make it more of a staple tactic. I have dismounted my troop leader's tank and had the crew observe the battlefield from a crest or a building. Not against a human though. Probably a waste of a tank as I guess that takes them "off net", so it would be a task better served by a cheaper unit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 As everybody is going on about how $hitty hull down is in the game I thought I would share this anecdote, and this is just one example from the many I have seen and noted in my AARs. In this situation I had a pair of Jagdpanzers moving up to attack a Sherman III I knew was in the woodline ahead... the Jpz on the left I failed to get into a good hulldown position, it was immediately spotted and fired on by the Sherman III (luckily it was only unhorsed and was able to remount and continue the mission a few turns later). The Jpz in the center of the image I did get into a good hulldown position, it was never spotted, never fired on, and in fact put four rounds into the Sherman III, the final round brewing it up on the next turn. So I contend that all is not doom and gloom when it comes to hulldown in this game. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely, but it is not broken either. Bil FYI this example came from my Wittmann's Demise AAR (link below) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 As everybody is going on about how $hitty hull down is in the game I thought I would share this anecdote, and this is just one example from the many I have seen and noted in my AARs. Thanks Bill.... What was the range of the engagement? Regards, Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Sorry I don't remember the range exactly.. probably 250-300m or so, maybe a tad longer. Spitting distance really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 So I contend that all is not doom and gloom when it comes to hulldown in this game. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely, but it is not broken either. I just posted something to that effect in the other hull down thread (how did we end up with two of them anyways?) But since you brought up anecdotal examples I should make a couple of points: 1) In any "real" in-game situation hull down status is likely to be only one of several factors influencing spotting. 2) There is a very large element of randomness in CMx2 spotting, to the extent that in any encounter who spots who first will often come down to dumb luck. To illustrate how much variation there is even in tightly controlled test situations here is the raw data from my last hull down spotting test. Spot times for fully hull down tanks (grey target line) in seconds (84.5 seconds average) 221 63 58 40 35 47 28 65 39 20 16 56 325 70 30 258 81 45 110 105 93 47 53 98 57 30 250 24 219 44 56 33 86 30 30 112 9 24 21 160 24 146 40 154 55 409 36 43 87 102 16 20 11 47 175 175 78 105 105 13 16 250 26 Spot time for tanks in the open in seconds (57.4 seconds average) 11 35 52 18 31 193 19 92 101 53 5 8 15 24 48 127 142 8 17 3 64 18 106 32 35 83 64 46 27 25 138 25 50 43 17 268 15 9 97 69 17 79 131 37 6 52 159 114 61 32 18 48 52 60 138 37 43 47 27 43 38 56 91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HistoryLover Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 1500 m PzIV h, hulldown VS PzIV in the open, bogged, cover arc, turret at the beginning showing into the wrong direction and when the test starts, the turret turns torwards the enemy Since it takes much time, I only made two runs. 1st run (each side 15 tanks) --------------enemy spotted after 1 minute --- 2 minutes---friendly dead after 10 min. Pz IV uncovered-----------8------------------------2-------------7 Pz IV hd-------------------7------------------------3-------------6 (5+1+2) (5 destroyed, 1 heavy damaged in safety, 2 no damage in safety) Spotting results in detail: Pz IV uncovered, turning turret: 14 18 24 27 35 46 55 60 69 89 Unspotted: 5 tanks Pz IV hulldown: 1 7 10 15 16 34 42 64 87 93 Unspotted: 5 tanks. 2nd run: --------------enemy spotted after 1 minute --- 2 minutes---friendly dead after 10 min. Pz IV uncovered-----------5------------------------3-------------7 Pz IV hd-------------------6------------------------3-------------7 (6+1+1) Spotting results in detail: Pz IV uncovered, turning turret: 9 9 26 31 31 66 92 104 252 266 357 Unspotted: 4 tanks Pz IV hd: 8 10 11 36 41 51 60 82 96 330 Unspotted: 5 tanks The uncovered tanks, although they needed to turn their turrets 180°, were spotting even more of the hulldown tanks than vice versa. And the HD tanks were not hit less often than the uncovered ones. Test scenario for download: http://s3.amazonaws.com/cmmods-zips.greenasjade.net/CMBN/Test_1500m_PzIVH_hd-PzIVH-ca.btt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eniced73 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I just posted something to that effect in the other hull down thread (how did we end up with two of them anyways?) But since you brought up anecdotal examples I should make a couple of points: 1) In any "real" in-game situation hull down status is likely to be only one of several factors influencing spotting. 2) There is a very large element of randomness in CMx2 spotting, to the extent that in any encounter who spots who first will often come down to dumb luck. To illustrate how much variation there is even in tightly controlled test situations here is the raw data from my last hull down spotting test. Spot times for fully hull down tanks (grey target line) in seconds (84.5 seconds average) 221 63 58 40 35 47 28 65 39 20 16 56 325 70 30 258 81 45 110 105 93 47 53 98 57 30 250 24 219 44 56 33 86 30 30 112 9 24 21 160 24 146 40 154 55 409 36 43 87 102 16 20 11 47 175 175 78 105 105 13 16 250 26 Spot time for tanks in the open in seconds (57.4 seconds average) 11 35 52 18 31 193 19 92 101 53 5 8 15 24 48 127 142 8 17 3 64 18 106 32 35 83 64 46 27 25 138 25 50 43 17 268 15 9 97 69 17 79 131 37 6 52 159 114 61 32 18 48 52 60 138 37 43 47 27 43 38 56 91 Uggggh! That is disappointing. Bil should have played the lottery that day he was able to seek a hull down position and get three shots off without being spotted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Yep Although to be fair, I tested at 800 meters. Variation increases with range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HistoryLover Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 I must be stupid to proove everyone the secret to win all tank battles, but without exposing it, it probably will never be corrected. 1500 m PzIV H vs Pz IV H Hull down tanks: This time the poor hull down tanks are buttoned down. Tanks without cover: showing the rear to the HD tanks, with cover arcs torwards the enemy; at the begin they turn their turrets torwards the enemy. 1. run, 15 tanks each side: ----enemy tanks spotted after 1 minute---------tanks lost----result HD:--------------3--------------------------------9+1+0----10 Without cover:---5--------------------------------4----------4 2. run, 15 tanks each side: ----enemy tanks spotted after 1 minute---------tanks lost----result HD:--------------1------------------------------8+3+2-------11 Without cover:----7------------------------------2------------2 Observations: The tanks in the open can turn their turrets, the hd tanks are blind. The tanks in the open can even shoot several times, the hd tanks do not see it. Conclusion: Reducing the hitable area of 70-90% has a minimum effect on the success. If you want to win a tank duel, make the enemy tank button down. Do not be afraid if he is hd. You can attack a buttoned down hd tank from the open and all chances are, that you will win. If you use two or three against one with that "tactic", victory is almost guaranteed. No need for maneuvering. And this is true even over a distance of 1500 m, where spreading of the 75/L48 gun should benefit the tank with the smaller hitable area even more. From gaming experience I knew that something was off, but that it's that extreme, surprises even me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 A certain amount of randomness is a good thing, because things aren't precisely predictable in combat, to say the least. But there is obviously something *very* wrong here. Being hull down should not only make it a lot harder to spot a tank in the first place, but much harder to hit it with the huge reduction in target area for the enemy's gunners. Plus if the hull down tank is up on a hill above the other tank, then you have the upward angle adding to the effective armor thickness of the hull down tank's turret armor. Bottom line; being hull down should be a big advantage for the hull down tank, both in terms of not being easily spotted and being hard for the enemy to hit. And if the hull down tank has high quality optics in the turret/periscopes, etc., that can help compensate, in terms of spotting, for any crew members in the hull who can't easily see to the front due to being in the hull down position (and hopefully CMBN simulates the important factor of optics quality). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Are you people sure it's the hull down status that's causing this? CM (1 and 2) always had problems with standing shooter against moving (and then stopping) target that applies without hull down or not being involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 No one is moving in these tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 The Jpz in the center of the image I did get into a good hulldown position Bil, I recall reading a report that Stug (and by association JpzIV) in Normandy got bad reviews from the Germans precisely because of hulldown. In close bocage country the roof mounted gunsight often had a clear field of view while the lower hull-mounted gun didn't. The result was they'd occasionally (often?) bury the round into intervening terrain just yards away. Your screenshot of the Jpz IV firing on the Sherman looks like the firer was lucky. The round must've cleared the intervening terrain by mere inches. US tankers actually perfected a 'skip shot' technique off intervening terrain using a delay fuse in order to achieve air bursts over a target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altipueri Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Aren't you supposed to put all those figures in a spreadsheet, calculate the mean and standard deviation, and then work out the probability of each occurrence? It looks to me that your data set is probably large enough to give reasonable results. And I think that even if the game engine is using some sort of random genrator or other distribution the aggregation of those results should themselves be a normal distribution. There seems to a considerable increase in the number of less than 10 second spottings in the second series, so maybe a normal distribution isn't correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts