Tank gun aiming / firing sequence

[Amizaur]

Videos of CMRT tank battles are great, I'm enjoying them very much and they convinced me to buy the game . But nothing is perfect and everything can be improved .

Watching how tanks are rotating turrets, aiming and firing, I think everything is happening too fast. Like it was all elite crews going on on amphetamine or robots.

Of course, it was this way in CMBN, but I didn't care too much because I didn't play CMBN too much. I'm going to play CMRT much more , so I'm really concerned about such details, like crew behaviour, which would add even more realism (both "technical realism" and "realistic feel when watching the replays").

The issue is - after the turret is rotated and the gun elevation corrected, only very small time is spend on actually aiming (estimating and setting the range and carefully placing the gunsight marker on the target). In extreme cases (short range) the shot comes instantly at the very moment the barrel stopped elevating/depressing (looks unrealistic and somewhat like it was a robot firing). When taking shots on longer range (like a missed Panther's shot against an Is-2) the aiming was IMO quite short too.

Maybe someone who served tanks could tell, if that's ok or maybe the aiming sequence should be made longer ? I believe that when tanks are taking shots at long range, IRL tank crews would probably usully spend some seconds estimating range and aiming carefully.

I would add a minimum of 0.5s (at very short ranges) of delay between end of animation of barrel elevating/depressing and the shot - such short delay would look good - like a very quickly aimed shot (an not an instant snap-shot). And longer the range - more time should be spend on precise aiming (after turret rotating / fast barrel elevation change, before firing the gun) - depending of course on crew quality and with some random factor added. So when a calm crew is firing at a target 1500 or 2000m away, they could spend even several seconds actually aiming, before the shot finally comes out. A nervous crew would aim faster, but with much lower accuracy. That would feel and look more realistic, I think.

[Freyberg]

I depends, but generally I disagree. Assuming they were real, the pixelcrewmen would be as hyped-up on adrenaline as it's possible to get. I've read stories about Sherman tank crews firing as quickly as the humanly could - on the grounds that getting the first shot might be the difference between life and death.

[Michael Emrys]

I think Amizaur has a point, but Freyberg has one too. As far as range estimation goes, tank gunners usually set their sights at what they expected an average battle range to be, depending on the terrain and sight lines. The trajectory of high velocity cannon was flat enough that a target appearing at anything close to the anticipated range was likely to be hit. Then the TC would observe the fall of shot and inform the gunner of any needed adjustments, which would get dialed in for the second shot. That said, I do wonder if the game as it stands is just a hair too quick on the draw for some of the shots, especially cases where a tank has been surprised by a target popping up where none was expected. But perhaps this comes under the heading of the "spotting from tanks too good" complaint.

Michael

[Dadekster]

Experience and training play a huge role in how quick a crew can find a target, lay on, aim and get that shot off. An experienced crew uses everything from TC down to driver who on his end helps pivot the track as needed to help get the barrel into action quicker.

[Andrew H.]

I think Amizaur has a point, but Freyberg has one too. As far as range estimation goes, tank gunners usually set their sights at what they expected an average battle range to be, depending on the terrain and sight lines. The trajectory of high velocity cannon was flat enough that a target appearing at anything close to the anticipated range was likely to be hit.

Michael

I've forgotten the precise details, but I think there's something in the Tigerfibel about setting the range to around 900 meters and having a good chance of hitting any 2m tall target at a range of 200-900 meters. (With the impact being near the top of the turret at 200 meters, and near the lower hull at 900 meters).

Note the disadvantage for the 9 foot tall Sherman vs. the 8 foot tall T-34 vs. the 7 foot tall StuG III. Most Tigers simply surrendered when confronted by 5 foot tall bren carriers or weasels.

[Michael Emrys]

Most Tigers simply surrendered when confronted by 5 foot tall bren carriers or weasels.

Very sensible of them.

Michael

[womble]

Note the disadvantage for the 9 foot tall Sherman vs. the 8 foot tall T-34 vs. the 7 foot tall StuG III. Most Tigers simply surrendered when confronted by 5 foot tall bren carriers or weasels.

LOL

Really LOL Good one.

[JasonC]

Amizaur - the final movements of turret rotation and gun elevation happen *after* the gunner has fully determined the range and his point of aim.

The way it works is the gunner's sight moves independently of the gun. The gunner puts his sight on the target and centers it, and uses the target's apparent size to estimate the range. As he has turned his periscopic sight to put it on his target, that sight has moved out of alignment with the gun. He has 2 levels on his instruments (one for deflection and one for elevation) inside the turret, that record the two being out of alignment with each other.

Then all he does is move the turret and gun itself until the bubbles inside his levels, center between their centering lines. That records the fact that the gun is now aligned on the same bearing and elevation as his sight. He moved them out of alignment when he moved his sight - he restores their alignment by moving the turret and gun, instead, leaving the sight bearing on the target. As soon as that alignment is complete, he can call ready and the tank commander will order the gun to fire.

So yes there is some aiming time, but that aiming time happens with the panoramic sight. The turret and gun-elevation don't know exactly where to move to until that sight is aligned with the target - but once the sight is "on", the gun moves to align with *the sight*, not with the target.

[Flanker15]

JC: That would only be possible on the handful of tanks that had that kind of sight like the T-34 and KV. It would also be a bad tactic since you want the front turret armor to be facing the threat you're aiming at 99% of the time.

On the topic at hand, I too wouldn't mind a little tiny delay between laying the gun and firing the first shot especially after swinging the turret around.

[Apocal]

It would also be a bad tactic since you want the front turret armor to be facing the threat you're aiming at 99% of the time.

What? I don't understand what you mean here.

[Flanker15]

If there's a tank to the side of your tank and the gunner turns just the panoramic periscope to do the range finding and aiming and the enemy tank fires during this it will hit the side turret instead of the front if he had turned the whole turret to aim.

You want to be always trying to point your strongest armor at the biggest threat.

[JasonC]

The tank commander is in charge of positioning the tank to maximize its protection while still being able to engage his chosen target. That isn't the gunner's job. The gunner's job is to put his sight on the target his tank commander has designated and aim the gun at it. In that order. That is how it works on every tank with a panoramic sight.

[Flanker15]

I'm confused now, I'm talking about WW2 tanks where only the gunner can move the turret and instructions are given to the gunner with voice. Panoramic sights were only a thing on some WW2 tanks and only much more recently can the gun be slaved to the sight instead of the other way round.

[Apocal]

If there's a tank to the side of your tank and the gunner turns just the panoramic periscope to do the range finding and aiming and the enemy tank fires during this it will hit the side turret instead of the front if he had turned the whole turret to aim.

You want to be always trying to point your strongest armor at the biggest threat.

I'm confused now, I'm talking about WW2 tanks where only the gunner can move the turret and instructions are given to the gunner with voice. Panoramic sights were only a thing on some WW2 tanks and only much more recently can the gun be slaved to the sight instead of the other way round.

I was referring to you calling it "bad tactics." Since apparently it everyone swapped to doing it that way after the war...?

[simmox]

its just a problem with animations for my mind so i tend to ignore it.

but i agree it looks a bit odd at times

i also would like to see at some point angling of armor improved.

most tank manuals/training assume you angle the armor front for best protection,clearly stated as *meal time* in the tiger operators manual i have.

obviously this is a minor issue and may or may not be achievable in the programming.i dont see it mentioned too often in the forums,so i thought id bring it up.

i think some sort of lock position using the face command may suffice?

[Flanker15]

I was referring to you calling it "bad tactics." Since apparently it everyone swapped to doing it that way after the war...?

Which tactic are you talking about specifically? I'm confused sorry.

[JasonC]

It is normal that the gunner moves the turret and elevates the gun. Some sight systems had his sight fixed in alignment with the gun, but that definitely has drawbacks. Until he is nearly on the target, he can't see it, especially on high magnification, as is needed at long range. At short range, the angle to sweep through to engage the next target can be larger. In both cases, the gunner has to rely more on the tank commander to talk him onto the target. The tank commander always has a wider view from multiple vision ports, or better when unbuttoned, and typically without magnification, so he has the widest field of view. In comparison, a tank gunner with a sight fixed to the gun's alignment is looking through a straw.

That is why modern tanks all went to panoramic sights, that can be moved independent of the gun to "pan" for the target and fix its bearing relative to the tank. My own experience is admittedly in that modern era...

FWIW.

[Michael Emrys]

It is normal that the gunner moves the turret and elevates the gun. Some sight systems had his sight fixed in alignment with the gun, but that definitely has drawbacks. Until he is nearly on the target, he can't see it, especially on high magnification, as is needed at long range. At short range, the angle to sweep through to engage the next target can be larger. In both cases, the gunner has to rely more on the tank commander to talk him onto the target. The tank commander always has a wider view from multiple vision ports, or better when unbuttoned, and typically without magnification, so he has the widest field of view. In comparison, a tank gunner with a sight fixed to the gun's alignment is looking through a straw.

Was it not common for the TC to call out a sighting in more or less the form of, "Tank just inside the patch of woods at two o'clock, about 600 yards," in order to get the gunner searching in the right zone? Also, could the gunner not use the wide angle sight, assuming the tank was equipped with one, to do the initial search, and then flip into the narrow field to fine tune the aim?

Michael

[Sailor Malan2]

As was said, as soon as the gun stops moving the gunner has finished aiming! In the assumption here, the gunner gets on for line, (and in most WW2 sights) estimates range, elevates accordingly. As soon as the right marking on his graticule is resting on the target, he has nothing else to do but fire. What is he meant to be doing once elevated on to correct range? Take a picture? Ask the TC what he had for breakfast? He needs to get the first shot off, and at most reasonable engagement ranges, elevation isn't that critical anyway (unless you are firing a 'doorknocker' at a Char B1Bis and need to hit the engine grill!

[Flanker15]

Ok back to the original topic then:

Yes once the gunner aims the sight he fires immediately buuuut in CMx2 the gunner tracks directly to the target and fires when it lines up immediately. What would be better is to track to the target, pause for moment (as the gunner does the fine aim) then fire.

This is to prevent the original anecdote of a tank slewing its gun around and firing an accurate shot the moment the gun lines up (the"tank 360 noscope" as I'll call it now!)

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

I know the Russian tanks, in keeping with that whole closed hatch business, had panoramic periscopes, but I'm pretty sure lots of other tanks didn't. Panoramic sights, on the US side of the house for sure, were/are typically tied to artillery aiming, in conjunction with aiming stakes, rather than DF gunnery rangefinding. In any event, here're wonderful panoramic views of the inside of the Panther and Sherman M4A1.

http://www.mvtf.org/pan_page.php?vehicle=panther_int_4824&vehiclename=Panzer%20V%20-%20Panther

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

In reading the T-34 Tank Service Manual over on AllWorldWars, I'm not at all convinced the T-34 had panoramic gunsights, since the description of the turret optics only mentions the telescopic sight for the gun and co-ax, as well as two turret roof devices, NTK-5 and NT-7.

"The Turret (Plate 4)

In the front of thc turret in a mantlet are installed: the 76 mm. gun and the co-axially mounted ATmachine gun and the telescopic sight TMOA-7. At the left of the gun on the turret neck the turret traversing gear is fitted.

The rear plate of the turret is removable. Fixed to the sides of the turret are the observation instruments and underneath them a revolver port is provided which is closed by means of a conical plug. This plug is inserted from the outside and pushed open by a steel lever. The rear part of the turret roof is fitted with an access hatch on the top of which there is a signal port. Fitted on to the front part of the roof are the instruments NTK-5 and NT-7 and between them a hatch is provided for ventilation which is covered by an armoured cap. The turret is prevented from coming off by turret clips. In the rear clip is incorporated a travelling lock for the turret."

Would someone with the Russian language Kolomiets book or other grog info care to clarify this issue?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

Reinforcing my assessment from before, here's what the T-34 Wiki says

Firepower

The gun sights and range finding for the F-34 main gun (either the TMFD-7 or the PT4-7[53]) were rather crude, especially compared to those of their German adversaries, affecting accuracy and the ability to engage at long ranges.[54] As a result of the T-34's two-man turret, weak optics, and poor vision devices, the Germans noted:

T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor provision of vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. A tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging three separate targets, but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result T-34 platoons lost the greater firepower of three independently operating tanks.[55]

Ergonomics

Early in the war the commander fought at a further disadvantage; the forward-opening hatch and lack of turret cupola forced him to observe the battlefield through a single vision slit and traversable periscope.[60] German commanders liked to fight "heads-up", with their seat raised and having a full field of view – in the T-34/76 this was impossible.[61]

Regards,

John Kettler

[Amizaur]

"As was said, as soon as the gun stops moving the gunner has finished aiming! In the assumption here, the gunner gets on for line, (and in most WW2 sights) estimates range, elevates accordingly. As soon as the right marking on his graticule is resting on the target, he has nothing else to do but fire. What is he meant to be doing once elevated on to correct range"

On medium and especially on long range, the aiming mark has to be placed on target very precisely. This final precise aiming was usually done not by electric/hydraulic traverse mechanism, but using the handwheels. On Tigers and Panthers the hydralic turret traverse mechanism was precise enough, that the gunner COULD use it for final aiming.

On T-34 for example, the electric turret drive was very crude and precise aiming had to be done manually - and it was said that this slowed down the process somewhat.

That's not all - to get best possible accuracy and to have repeatable results, the gunner should always turn the handwheels in one and only direction while placing aiming mark on target- for example always down and to the right! If he had to turn left on the target, he should oversteer with electric drive to the left and finally correct to the right.

Precision usually takes time. Even if it took only one second for a skilled gunner, I would like to see this one second delay in aimng sequence.

[Flanker15]

JasonC,

In reading the T-34 Tank Service Manual over on AllWorldWars, I'm not at all convinced the T-34 had panoramic gunsights, since the description of the turret optics only mentions the telescopic sight for the gun and co-ax, as well as two turret roof devices, NTK-5 and NT-7.

Regards,

John Kettler

The roof device on the T-34 could also be used as a gun sight, it had range ladder sights and assuming it was calibrated correctly could be used the same as the fixed sight when aligned with the gun.