RoF, Aiming devices

[DrBaeke]

Hello,

CM is def. the best demo I´ve just seen

up to this day...

On the other hand some points are still not clear to me (only to me? I hope, I didn´t overlook some obvious infos you were already presenting in the demo):

a) Somewhere down below you stated, that the

Hellcats will have an higer rate of fire compared to the German tanks. Why? I can´t see the big difference between a shell

of a 7,5cm/L48 gun (Stug) and a 7,6/L55 gun

(Hellcat - relying on memory). Or was your statement only refering to guns like the

88/L56 + 88/L71 aso? How will the training level of the Crews affect the RoF?

What sizes will the maps have? Will it be possible to have some tank duels at - ex. g. - 1500 m?

c) How is the difference concerning the quality of the aiming devices in German vs.

Allied tanks modeled?

Thanks in advance. Dr. Bäke

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I can answer two of your questions (I think):

a.) The Hellcat was an open topped vehicle. It thus had a more room inside it's turret. This allowed for a higher ROF. Also I have read somewhere (don't remember where) that the Hellcat had a gunner and TWO assitant gunners. I don't know if this is true but it would also help some it true.

From what I have seen Fionn post the maps can be up to 3000m x 3000m

c) Don't know...but I would assume it is factored into the AFVs chance to hit.

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-08-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott is basically correct. Each tank's RoF was partially determined by crew space and ammo locations, as well as shell size. Some gun systems, like the one in the Stuart IIRC, even had a semi-auto loading feature that speeded up RoF. So shell size is but one factor. Crew experience not only improves RoF, but it also improves accuracy and reaction time. In other words, it is VERY important!

I forget what the max map size is, but I think one length can be about 4000m. Honestly, I can't remember. We've changed it a couple of times

We really didn't do much with aiming devices. There is no data that we could find that would allow us to model the differences accurately. In general, at this point in the war, the German and Western Allied vehicles were on a par for the most part. Sure, some vehicles had better visibility/optics than others, but we really felt it was better to not just start making this stuff up because that is the ONLY thing we could do.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-08-99).]

[Mark L]

How about gyrostabilizers?

Mark

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes, we did factor that it. It was something that is more quantifiable. So Allied tanks that had this great little device do get an accuracy bonus when firing on the move.

Steve

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Steve:

This is kinda ot but I read somewhere (don't ask me where...) that quite a few of the tankers 'disabled' the gyros on their tanks because they said that they did not work very well and more importantly were more of a hazard to the crews than to the enemy. I guess the gun moving independently as the tank rolled along could crush an unwary crewman.

Did you come across anything about this in your research?

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ooooh... that sounds very familiar! I know we discussed this in the past at some point. But I *totally* forgot what the conclusion was. Possibly it was yet another "grumbling vet" kind of thing It is really amazing the different "truths" that can come out of guys that used the same weapons in the same circumstances. Read The Deadly Brotherhood for plenty of examples. One guy swears that the 60mm mortar sucks worse than a black hole, and the another comes up and says that he would go AWOL if they removed his 60mm mortars. I mean, we are talking VERY different opinions here

Steve

[Fionn]

Oh I brought up gyrostabilisers by email with you many months ago Steve...

Consensus was that the Allies mostly disabled them and that they didn't give a major advantage when on the move and often served to actually throw OFF the aim.

I think it was decided that gyrostabilisers would all be presumed to be non-active since most stuff I've seen says crews didn't like them.

I wouldn't bet my house that that was what was decided but its what I remember. This was at least 4 months ago that we discussed gyrostabilisers.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Sten]

I know that somewhere in the ASL rules (or was that a scenario?) there's a claim regarding the gyrostabilizers. They say that most of the crews threw away some vital part of it just so they could get out of "point duty" while driving from place to place. The commanders (doctrine?) obviously wanted the "point tank" to be equipped with stabilizers, so if I just break mine, someone else will be on point.

Chicken **** or self preservation?

Sten

( I hope all this has some truth to it. I have absolutely no idea if it does.)

[Guest JonS]

I've thought about this for a while, and I'm mildly surprised no one else has commented on it.

Up thread Steve said "In general, at this point in the war, the German and Western Allied vehicles were on a par for the most part" and then went on to say that for this reason differences in gunnery optics were more-or-less ignored.

Now, in a certain, similarly scaled WW2 'puter game recently released a great deal of effort was put into highlighting the differences between Allied and Axis optics, and a firm statement was made that better optics greatly assisted the Axis gunners.

Looking at the graphics I (IMO) would have to agree with this position. With a bit of training mils are an incredible aid for all sorts of useful things on a battlefield, and being able to measure them accurately is a vital part of it.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, or saying that either game is spack because blahblahblah.

I am curious about the marked difference in approach to this (key?) aspect of AFV gunnery. Any comments?

Thanks

JonS

------------------

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Fionn]

I think the point is being made that:

a) given equal training US crews could gun almost as well as the Germans and

the difference is almost impossible to quantify

SO

c) since it was a small difference and any quantification would have been complete guesswork it was left out.

I can tell you lots of cases where experienced US tankers outshot green German tankers and for the main part the difference between two crews in tanks is due to :

a) the experience of the crew

the characteristics of the tank (armour and gun).

BTW since its a tank simulator it has to pay homage to the differences in gunsight. CM isnt a tank simulator so doesn't.

I was a lead tester on that game you are talking about and a lot of discussion went into the scopes there when we first got the alphas over a year ago now.

I think CM's decision is right since a 10% or more German aiming advantage would be hard to justify in many cases. (they used complicated sights).

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

hehe... Fionn, THAT was what I was thinking about. I am sure that I stand corrected, and that Charles either took it out or decided to not put it in.

As for that "other game", take what you hear with a grain of salt. Dice rolls an accurate simulation makes not

Steve

[DrBaeke]

Fionn - sorry but your statement concerning the German optics is underestimating the real difference.

* There were american tank crews outshooting

their German counterparts? Oh yes, in 1941 there was even a German tank commander in a

Pz IIf knocking out several KW-Is at point blank range... Conclusion: We should concentrate on the average event.

* The hit ratio in an Hetzer (7,5/L48) was 90 Percent at 1000 m. I´m def. no expert of american tanks, so I´m wondering if there exist some comparable datas for the Shermans aso...

* You describe the German optics as complicated. That´s true for an outsider. But

if you get used to it, it´s quite easy (according to some veterans I talked to).

In contrast the american optics seemed to be quite primitive. Yes - they did their work at ranges up to 700 m, but beyond that range?

* Ignoring the "change-resistance" Big-Time will most likely bring up against doing some rework for their formulas (quite understandable - isn´t it?), I would reason that there should be a depreciation-modifier for the american hit-ratio compared to their German counterparts in regard to the range of the target (ceteris paribus): In short, something like

the following thumb-rule:

400m => equal probability

400m-800m => slightly decreasing modifier

beyond 800m => decreasing modifier with an increasing "velocity".

Why? Have you ever heard of American tank-kills at ranges of 4200 m? I don´t. But

we both know, that the German optics could

achieve those results (even in a Tiger I)

Best regards, Dr. Bäke

[Fionn]

Dr Baeke starts off by talking about the need to talk about the "average" event and then finishes by talking about a 4.2 km kill

Way to lose the thread Baeke

Talking about the Hetzer's hit ratio is completely wrong here. Those are factory test hit ratios.. I can show you 6 lber hit ratios which claim over 90% hits at 1500 metres conducted on firing ranges in England.

I could make out that the British were BETTER gunners than the Germans by using data I have BUT since those datas were found on firing ranges and have a number of other errors I think we can afford to agree not to do so

Coincidence rangefinders are very difficult to operate and were prone to damage. if damaged the Germans had to rely on a secondary sight which was WORSE then the rugged US primary sight.

Kills beyoned 1 km were RARE. I know some of you ahve read about them in books and presume they are common but they aren't. Sub-1km I would say US sights are quite adequate.

Lastly but not leastly go check out the rangefinders in German tanks and US and British tanks for yourself. I've sat in German, US and British WW2 tanks and checked out the rangefinders and quite honestly I didn't find anything uber-amazing about the German rangefinders. Certainly they allowed a more accurate shot once properly zoned in BUT they took longer to zero in on the enemy's range (which is why Wittmann's gunner Bobby Wol (sic) standardised his rangefinder to 800 metres and did aiming by eye and NOT using the rangefinder... In FACT I've jsut shown why SOME crews found them so complicated to use that they did NOT use them ... how's that for a crappy addendum to a rangefinder.. So slow and difficult to use that crews simply left it be )

Again, I think they were close enough in performace to US sights at normal ranges that we can simply agree they were equivalent.

Soviet sights were ABYSMAL so there I would definitely agree that some account must be taken of their abysmal sights. (Seen through one and quite honestly I could barely make things out (although I think the sight may have been damaged since the view was SOOO bad).

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[DrBaeke]

Fionn drops a track...

+ When I was talking about the 4200m-kills I

was developing an interval(!) for an hit-model... You are able to see the difference between an upper end and the mean of a distribution function?

+ Refering to experienced vs. non-experienced

crews is misleading...

+ We all know what the average combat

distance for tanks in WWII was... But refering to it when trying to evaluate the

quality of the optics is also misleading...

+ So you admit that at greater ranges the German optics were better and at closer ranges they were en par?

See P. Carell: Unternehmen Barbarossa im Bild for the quite clear picture the crew of a Ferdinand could still have at a combat distance of 1600m to 2000m...

+ Nice, that you already sat (!) in WWII tanks... Me too, but I prefer to base my opinions on those persons who really fought in those tanks => So when I was talking about the 90percent hit-ratio for an hetzer I refered to combat reports and interviews ...

[Guest Madmatt]

Ok!! Break Kids!!!! Everyone take a nice deep breathe before responding While it's not bad yet, I can see where this thread could start to go sour very quickly! Before you know it you guys are going to start arguing over who has the bigger barrel droop!

Facts are like genitals, everyone has them and Men always think theirs are better and want to share um!

Carry on soldiers...

Madmatt out...and Keeping the Peace since 1809

[Guest Scott Clinton]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-11-99).]

[Fionn]

You are able to see the difference between an upper end and the mean of a distribution function?

[Ken Talley]

Fionn, you seem to have defined the argument as below 800 meters and that there is no difference between American and German optics below 800 meters. DrBaeke examples used 700 and 1000 meters. I believe he is suggesting that German optics are better at longer ranges. Are you saying that there are no statistically significant differences between US and German optics beyond 800 meters?

Ken

[Fionn]

Good point Ken,

I think that below 800 there is zero realworld difference most of the time.

I think that above 1 km (800meters was seemingly the average engagement range but I think that there were no differences when usage AND construction are BOTH taken into account) the German sights were better BUT there is absolutely no way to quantify this ACCURATELY in the game.

How much of a better to hit chance should a German sight have? Also, once that is gone into then we have to account for ALL the myriad sights the Germans had (some good, some not so good)..

German sights weren't ALL great or even good.

I think that it would be unfair to give the Allied tanks a longer "aiming time" to simulate poor sights since in reality the complicated German sights actually slowed GERMAN AIMING times.

How do you determine if a sight is "better"?

Is it image clarity, amount of distortion, ability to get the correct range in perfect conditions or the ability to get the correct range in battlefield conditions?

Do you say that getting the range within 10 metres is good enough to shoot at? Well if you say that then you MUST account for the flight path of the shell with the consequence that we come BACK to the gun/sight complex being what is measured and NOT the sight by itself (something Baeke seems not to want to consider).

Of HUGE importance is going to be the time taken to get the range reading. US sights got range readings faster while German sights got more precise range readings...

Basically its a big complicated issue which I could write a 4 or 5000 word article about easily but it boils down to the fact that IMO it is IMPOSSIBLE to quantify how much better German sights were at long range.

SO I feel that saying that the German crew will get an accurate range in 10 seconds and that the US crew which gets a pretty accurate range to target in 6 seconds uses the other 4 to refine their range to target up to the level of the German crew is a good abstraction.

I have gathered LOTS of data on the various sights and if there was a good and accurate way to get them into COmbat Mission 1 then I'd have argued for it. I haven't because the data isn't there to support a change and the current system IS defensible on the grounds of reality (but is abstracted slightly of course).

When CM2 is done then I think that this issue is going to have to be tackled since Soviet sights were abysmal and I think its generally established many of their sights weren't much good beyond 300 metres. 300 metres is a LOT different from saying " US, Uk and German sites were equal to ranges up to one kilometre IN ACTION (in action being important there) and after 1 km in action German sights got better results but took so long to get them that Allied tankers would have had a good chance to refine their initial readings (which would be innacurate) up to the standards of the German sight and STILL get their first shot off at the same time as the German.

I hope that clears this up a bit. It is a complicated area especially when you go into sight specifics and couple them to the gun specifics with which they were tied.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[tss]

When CM2 is done then I think that this issue is going to have to be tackled since Soviet sights were abysmal and I think its generally established many of their sights weren't much good beyond 300 metres.

Agreed, but with some luck (or make it with lots of luck) and a good gunner one could get hits over large distance even with Soviet sights. The longest one I'm aware happened on 26.6.1944 near Portinhoikka when a Finnish T-34m41 gunner destroyed a T-34/85 with one shot from the distance of 2000 metres.

I too have read a couple of courses on statistics and know that the shot clearly an outlier and should be ignored when discussing about the average performance. I just wanted to point out that long-distance hits were possible even with Soviet-made sights even if they were (very) rare.

- Tommi

[Ken Talley]

Fionn, it sounds that you are saying that German optics are better than American optics at longer range. However the difference is left out because the differences are not quantifiable. If the differences are statistically significant and the optics are left out, then the Germans will not have their historical hitting capabilities at longer ranges. Say you create a best guess general optics model. If you are a little high in the optics advantage, then you give the Germans a slight edge over historical capability. If you are a little low in the optics advantage, then you give the Germans a lesser edge than historical capability. But either way, would be closer to reality than not to have a model at all when you are talking a statistically significant factor. Unless your model is drastically wrong.

Games are full of non-quantifiable factors. For example, how do you quantify morale? How do you quantify the impact on morale of crossfire? They aren't quantifiable. But you can't leave it out so you make your best guess model.

If I remember correctly, the figures for average engagement ranges in Europe were 500 meters. Although that may have been a NATO study of average ranges in Germany-can't remember. So how often will engagements occur beyond 800 meters? If w/i CM it is extremely rare, then the time required to model optics may not be justified. Not a problem. But sometimes non-quantifiable factors must be modeled in some fashion.

Ken

[DrBaeke]

Fionn,

thank you for your last statement.

I think we both can stop showing each other,

how well we kept our courses in statistics in memory...

So what´s left?

+ Why ignoring the skill of the crews?

=> Because I wanted to seperate the quality

of a device and keep off the influence by the human factor... (Yes, in reality that´s difficult, but it can be handled in a approx. satisficing way)

+ The average combat distance is widely influenced by the landscape => so in a jungle

fight the optics have nearly no meaning, in the steppes of Russia they are most important, in France def. to a

lesser degree => that´s the reason why I asked about the size of the map.

+ In the heat of the exchange you overlooked

a breakdown of logic in your argumentation: You highlighted the danger of relying too much on personal opinions, but

based your statements on the other hand to a large degree on the experiences by B. Woll.

No doubt - an extraordinary gunner, but should that lead to the result, what an normal tanker should do concerning the use of an aiming device (The other german pilots stated that they were not able to copy J. Marseilles dogfight-tactics)?

+ So I tried to develop a "thump-rule-model" (not based on a single opinion, but based on a quite large "cohort" of statements)that beyond a certain distance the German tanks should have a quality edge

concerning the aiming devices:

a) If those optics had been damaged is then secondary.

That you loose time using them, should be

incorporated in the reaction time and the ROF, but not in the probability of an hit...

I´m still convinced that it should be that way, but like Voltaire already stated: I´m absolutly not d´accord with your opinion, but

I will do everything to let you state it (Sorry for the meagre translation effort)

=> So I will drop this topic and will try

to generalize a bit my reasoning, giving you the background for my postings (I hope I do not overstress your patience): We were playing the "Last defense"-szenario a couple of times.

What did we find out? The hellcats positioned

on the hill won most of the tank duels. That´s quite a surprise if you compare this result with some historical facts.

a) The position of the hellcats (on the top of the hill) is according to the German-panzer-doctrine the place, which every newcomer thinks the best place

where to be stationed, but in fact should be avoided at all costs.

The amour of the hellcats takes a lot of punishment - but in fact was extremly thin...

In contrast they have no problem to take the Tiger out at 800 m (which uses some shattered trees as a "camo")

c) They arrive as reinforcements, but open fire first despite that we had the German

tanks waiting for them).

=> Sorry, but in my personal view that is

quite an ahistorical result... So we began

thinking about some flaws concerning the formulas used by CM.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

> a) The position of the hellcats (on the top of the hill) is according to the

>German-panzer-doctrine the place, which every newcomer thinks the best

>place where to be stationed, but in fact should be avoided at all costs.

Firstly and most importantly what makes you assume that where the Hellcats are really on 'top' of the hill? It is the highest point on that particular hill in the scenario…that does not make it the 'top of the hill'. As far as we know that hill's slope could continue to rise just off the map edge.

Secondly, I assume you are alluding to the effect of AFVs being silhouetted against the sky. I think you over state its importance IN THIS PARTICULAR ENGAGEMENT. The main reason why this was to be avoided was to avoid being spotted first. Both sides spot each other at the same time do to range in this scenario so this is not an issue. Another reason way this was to be avoided was that it would be slightly easier to target an AFV on a hilltop do to its very distinct outline against the sky. Again, this would be a minor thing IMO considering the range of the engagement.

Thirdly, the ability to fire on the Tiger from above, thus perhaps gaining a 'top hit' is an enormous advantage for the 76mm gun of the Hellcat.

General rules of doctrine do not apply in all cases.

> The amour of the hellcats takes a lot of punishment - but in fact was

> extremly thin...In contrast they have no problem to take the Tiger out

> at 800 m (which uses some shattered trees as a "camo")

You seem to confuse the 'camo' effect from scattered trees with the ability of the shot to penetrate the armor after it has been hit. These are two completely different factors.

As for the Hellcats being able to 'take a lot of punishment' whereas they have "no problem" destroying the Tiger… I don't know what game you are playing but the Hellcats in my game can not take ANY punishment! I think in the three times I have played that game I have seen ONE Stug shell NOT destroy a Hellcat, it was a gun hit. All other hits have destroyed the Hellcats. I have seen MANY shots bounce from the Tiger's armor. I suggest you play this game a few more times.

> c) They arrive as reinforcements, but open fire first despite that

> we had the German tanks waiting for them).

Well, this is my sore point on this scenario also. I also think Fionn stated he was not in favor of having 'reinforcements' suddenly appear in the midst of battle. It is PURELY a scenario design issue. If the Hellcats had appeared on the reverse slope and been forced to actually DRIVE over the crest. And you were waiting for them the Tiger would most likely gain the first spotting and thus first shot. AGAIN, this is all a scenario design issue, not a game design issue. But, keep in mind if you setup your Tiger to 'wait' for the Hellcats you are in essence 'cheating' (at least IMO) because you taking advantage of fore-knowledge of an event that you should know nothing about.

Just my 2 cents.

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[Moon]

I'd like to add that although you - the player - have the fore-knowledge, the tactical AI (in other words, the guys in that Tiger tank) doesn't. Even if you place the Tiger in the perfect ambush spot to pick off the Hellcats soon to appear on the hill, for the TacAI (again, the guys in the tank) all you are doing is asking them to wait and smoke a cigarette. So when the Hellcats crest the hill and appear on the map all of a sudden (which I find totally realistic, btw) the TacAI (guys in tank) is still surprised, although you - the player - are not. You might curse why the Tiger didn't start shooting straight away, but hell - he didn't know that something was coming.