RoF, Aiming devices

[Fionn]

I agree with Scott as regards the Hellcats NOT being able to take punishment. ANY hit will kill them.

If you're seriously saying a Hellcat can take a lot of punishment than I'd have to ask if you are playing CM or have hacked your data or something weird? I don't think ANYONE has had a Hellcat actually survive a hit

Onto Dr Baeke:

1. As you said this discussion needs to correlate with normal sighting distances in the terrain of the region simulated. US Army tests in Germany (post-war) showed that even in modern combat the average distance at which a target would FIRST become visible is 800 metres.

Note that the average combat distance is lower still. I believe WW2 findings in France stated that the majority of combat commenced within 1 km and most firing occured at less than 500 metres.

This feeds into my statement that it is more important to model sighting differences in CM2 (Eastern Front, where your namesake had such success) than it is in CM 1 (also the vast difference in quality of sighting mechanisms on the eastern front must be compared to the relatively slight differences in sighting quality.)

2. As for your comment re: Bobby Woll and my reliance on his statements .. I wouldn't do something as basically wrong as using an exceptional gunner's statements as my sole support for an argument after just pointing out that you were flawed to pick an outlier yourself

If you read carefully you will see that I referred to Bobby Woll many times but was careful to state that I have read of many other gunners saying the same as him. Thus Bobby Woll was one example picked from a group of others who shared the same tactic (disregarding rangefinders totally etc in sub-1km combat). I have read of many "average" tankers who expressed the exact sentiment as Bobby Woll did so I presume it was a widespread lesson learnt at the front.

Baeke said: "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..."

Well actually the primary aiming devices in WW2 were coincidence rangefinders whilst the secondary were simple telescopic sights. It was the primary sight which took a long time to use correctly. I agree with you that using the ROF/quality of fire rationalisation is NOT perfect BUT in the absence of quantifiable data it's the best that can be done.

I'll make you and anyone else a deal since I DO agree that the ROF/quality of fire abstraction isn't perfect. IF you can get accurate data for every UK, US and German sighting mechanism mounted in tanks which quantifies precisely how much more accurate German optics were at 100 metres, 250 metres, 500 metres, 1km and 2 km then I'll argue for it to go in the game.

Unfortunately such data is not available to the public for all sights and I'd hate to see a "15% accuracy bonus" rule going in. That'd be terribly artificial and flawed and lead to some rather large errors in specific circumstances.

As for the points a-c:

a) Well, their position is a position NO newbie should drive into since it is a position of extreme vulnerability BUT it is also a position that conveys great offensive tactical power in this situation. (tophits are the best way to kill the Tiger and many players have killed the Tiger with a penetration through the top turret)

I don't know where you're getting this from. Have you had ANY Hellcats hit and survive? (unless it was main gun damage or something?) I'd LOVE to see that movie since everyone else has had 99% of the Hellcats die from any hit. The other 1% might get away with severe damage from the first hit.

c) Actually, since the German tanks are probably distracted by the fighting nearest them this is an archetypal "TDs crest a hill, spot the Germans before they are spotted and get off the first salvo" situation.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest R Cunningham]

My beef with the Hellcat arrival is that as they arrive, the US player has the ability to issue them orders immediately and direct their fire onto the German armor. The German player DOES NOT see the Hellcats until the replay and can only hope his armor sees the threat and reacts to it. If the German armor is fighting the US infantry then they will likely be buttoned which considerably lessens their chances.

Perhaps a better solution would be to have those reinforcements arrive during the replay and letting the TAC AI do its job without the player's knowledge of the enemy dispositions to influence the Hellcat activities upon arrival.

[Guest Madmatt]

Scott made a very interesting observation that would have NEVER occured to me! He said:

"Firstly and most importantly what makes you assume that where the Hellcats are is really on 'top' of the hill?"

That just totally blew me away! I really never thought of it that way! Now I really had no problem with the Hellcats appearing at all (I may have been one of about 4 people that didn't know they were coming when I first played!) but I never felt it was too artificial or fake to have them appear, it's not like they 'warp' into the middle of town or anything. They just start about 50 (more?) meters from the edge. Makes perfect sense to me and I am (and have always been) ok with it.

I just really liked Scott's observation!

Madmatt out and thinking 'outside the box'!

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

[Guest Scott Clinton]

MOON: "So when the Hellcats crest the hill and appear on the map all of a sudden (which I find totally realistic, btw)"

HUH? The Hellcats NEVER "crest the hill". They are 'teleported' onto the 'top' of the hill. IF they had actually crested the hill then the Hellcats would be moving when they enter, have a lowered spotting ability and be forced to come to a full stop in order to (most) accuratly target the German AFVs. Minor things in most games and in some scenaios...but in this game in this scenario where the engagement happens at ranges that ensure a high to hit and high to kill ratio it makes for a major advantage.

Steve mentioned he did this for the surprise factor. I can buy into that arguement because it sure worked for me! But it does reduce the replay ability of the scenario IMHO.

Mr. Cunningham and others have voiced concern over the timing of the arrival in this and other threads. I posted in another thread just now that IMO it is not WHEN a unit enters but WHERE the unit enters. The simple inclusion of a reverse slope would change this scenario quite a bit. But then that "SURPRISE!" factor would not be there. Its a trade-off and one in which I will gladly forfit the "SURPRISE!" factor.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[Guest Big Time Software]

Er, we seem to be missing the point here...

Comparing the German optics to American ones is largely conjecture. It is why we aren't specifically simulating this. Dr. Baeke's proposed solution is nothing more than an informed opinion at best. Not good enough as other informed opinions disagree.

As for why x weapon could or could not hit y grouping at z distance... there are lots of other factors like muzzle velocity, stabilization, etc. to factor in. Why weren't many Allied tanks scoring kills at 4000m? Because most Allied guns couldn't even hit that far out because most were the stupid low velocity 75s So this is already in CM because the other qunatifiable factors are in place. Plus, average combat range in CM is going to be well under 2500m most often, so the probably advantage of German optics at those ranges is not relevant to CM. With a few exceptions, the majority of battlefields in NW ETO did not afford much in the way of massive unobstructed LOS.

And this isn't about changing code. I would suspect that Charles could code this up in well under half an hour. It is more or less a variable change. So it is not going in because we can't truly quantify the difference between the two nation's optics from gun to gun to gun and feel that there most likely was no terrific difference (on balance) at normal combat ranges. So to give the Germans a boost would be wrong.

Steve

[Harold Jones]

Scott said:

My beef with the Hellcat arrival is that as they arrive, the US player has the ability to issue them orders immediately and direct their fire onto the German armor. The German player DOES NOT see the Hellcats until the replay and can only hope his armor sees the threat and reacts to it. If the German armor is fighting the US infantry then they will likely be buttoned which considerably lessens their chances.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Harold: see MY previous post and please explain what YOUR last post is supposed to mean. Frankly I am at quite a loss how they relate to each other and to 'teleporting tanks'.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[Guest JonS]

ahh Scott, you can't direct fire onto what you haven't seen. See the connection?

BTS and Fionn, you seem to be saying that because you can't quantify it to the nth degree, and would have to rely on informed opinions, you aren't going to bother. Fair enough. Thanks for answering my initial question. I don't have the resources, or the bile, to bother either.

You know that saying "learn something new every day", well today mine is the use of coincidence sights on AFVs (Arty is more my thing). Excuse my ignorance here, but does this work the same as the sights used for DF by Naval vessels? That is get two mirrors on a long baseline (BBs always had the best 'cos they could use the great length of the ship), sight on the target and measure the angles at the mirrors? Basically form a big triangle and use SOH/CAH/TOA to figure out the side lengths?

What I was meaning to refer to in my original post was the sight with the little triangles in it. If this is the secondary sight for the Germans, AND the one they chose to use at ranges <1000m, then I think the Germans would STILL have an advantage because they had a rapid way to ACCURATELY estimate range. (I'm familiar with stats, and very familiar with how mils work). How to go about quantifying this is another story.

What do you intend using in the way of quantifiable information on the Eastern Front? Informed opinions? Tank crew reports?

Thanks

JonS

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

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

[Fionn]

Same principle really.

How it worked was that you had basically had two scopes.

one was just a normal telescope while the other was linked to a variable focus.

basically what you did was change the focal length of the variable one using a dial until the TWO images matched up perfectly. When that was done you looked at the dial (which basically read the location of the focusing mirror from the first mirror (which if we remember our optics is proportional to the distance to target) and thus allowd a very simple equation to be done so that the location of the focal mirror WHEN IN FOCUS yielded a reading of range on the dial which was the range to the target in focus.)

What made it simple was that you simply got two images to "coincide" so there was only one image using a simple dial and could then read the range off of that dial.

Obviously I'm giving a very simple (and in some ways incorrect) version of how it worked here but this is 95% accurate and more than most know

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest JonS]

Thanks Fionn - I get the general idea, and can imagine the rest from there.

JonS

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Jon: "ahh Scott, you can't direct fire onto what you haven't seen. See the connection?"

No, again re-read my posts. This is EASILY worked around using the current system. In the Last Stand a simple reverse slope would do the trick. The Hellcats start out of LOS and must move into the engagement from a short distance away. Easy to 'fix' if you want it that way.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[jim crowley]

In regard to hits on Hellcats; short description of recently fought battle.

Hellcats make their dramatic appearance and take out Tiger and 1 Stug with first shots. Second Stug in scattered trees, not in LOS, on right flank (German).

Hellcats spread out and Stug draws a bead on one; fires and gets a penetrating hit to the turret front, but doesn't stop it!

Hellcat returns fire; misses. Stug fires again; obtains similarly placed hit which, this time, does knock-out the Hellcat.

Cheers

Jim

[Harold Jones]

Scott,

Sorry my post was so unclear, I attempted to make it during a break in a meeting, and I should have just deleted it. Make no mistake I agree that the Hellcats arriving as stationary vehicles in a location where they can see and engage targets is the root of the problem. Since this is at least in part a scenario design problem, most designers will be able to avoid it by having reinforcements arrive in a location that is likely to not have LOS to enemy units. The other part of this problem is something that cannot be solved as easily. Due to the difficulty of coding a usable user interface and AI routines that would restrict a unit’s ability to shoot at or react to an enemy that it personally has not spotted, BTS are forced to allow all friendly units to have perfect knowledge of all spotted enemy units. This perfect intelligence is what allows the Hellcats to target the German armor as soon as they arrive. The German's are forced to wait until the Hellcats fire or move and thus become spotted before responding. My example of the unspotted Tiger was meant to illustrate this.

[This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 11-12-99).]

[This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 11-12-99).]

[WS]

Played both scenarios several times.

my remarks:

the "Hellcat"was designed in the "hit&run"-

philosophy: strong gun, fast moving, weak armour (average: 12 mm - one of the game's HC swallowed 3 hits from the Tiger and wasn't impressed at all)

I would have expected the HCs using their speed and mobility, trying to find a better place - no way! standing on top of the hill the killing of the German tanks seems to be no problem at all (standing on top of a hill looks sharp but is no tank-tactics at all).

my German tank-crews are "veteran", nevertheless they get massacred by green

Americans (summer44) - read your answers concerning "experience".

don't you think, the fact that HCs arrive and start fire is a bit strange ( no, no "luck" please! I believe you, it happened once -

but should we realy count on it??)

This means, Germans can't react for one minute ( out of 30) - even 3 spotters in front line and tanks waiting in back line didn't change anything.

shouldn't a mortar be able to fire ( at least more or less into the right direction) even without a "line-of-sight" (2nd scenario) ?

[Guest Big Time Software]

In regards to WS' post, all three Hellcats were Regular. I'm pretty sure that one StuG was as well. In any case, the difference between Regular and Veteran is not THAT huge.

In any case, the German tanks have, at most, a 10 second targeting delay (or there abouts). In fact I think it is less than that for the Vets. There is no one turn targeting delay, or even a 30 second one. The TacAI sees the Hellcats, and reacts. In most of my games the Hellcats knock out one or two German vehicles, but all three are lost, even if I manage to get one into town (almost always do ).

What you guys don't like is the nasty surprise of it all. As I have said in about a half dozen other threads; tough Stuff like this happens in war. Scott wants a reverse slope, I didn't. And in any case, all it does is give the US an extra advantage, because he can line the tank up first, then pop over the crest in a better spot. Hell, he could even fire from HULL DOWN positions, making a kill on the Hellcats practically impossible. For the German player, the results would most likely be worse if there were a reverse slope.

Steve

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Steve:

>> For the German player, the results would

>> most likely be worse if there were a

>> reverse slope."

True, could be worse: hull down, in scattered trees, not knowing exactly where or when they will pop over the crest. BUT, more realistic any way you look at it. And they would never have the advantage of 'instant' targeting because they don't really crest the hill.

>> Scott wants a reverse slope, I didn't.

Ahhhh, that is REALLY the key isn't it!

And with the editor I am hearing so much about I couldn't care less how these three AFVs enter the battle in this ONE scenario.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[Fionn]

Scott said, "And with the editor I am hearing so much about I couldn't care less how these three AFVs enter the battle in this ONE scenario. "

Exactly !

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yup Scott, all comes down to personal tastes If I had done a reverse slope I would have reduced the Hellcats to 2 for sure. Two of those babies, in semi-cover, hull down would be really tough to nail. Might have even changed it to one, but the Hellcat has such a POOR ammo supply that if it missed much it would be all over.

Steve

[Richard III]

Thinking of Hellcats on a reverse slope, I recall reading about a UN official in Bosnia encountering several knocked out Serb T-55s. He looked around and spotted a muzzle pointing down at the road from a reverse slope. When he went up the hill to investigate, there was a Jackson (M-36) sitting there in a big puddle of oil, the crew surrounded by greasy parts trying to keep the thing running. That half century year old TD had destroyed several (I forget how many) MBTs!

[tss]

Some time ago I wrote:

... 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 have read about that shot in three different books but it seems that the event didn't take place after all as the war diary of the Finnish Heavy Tank Company doesn't mention any destroyed enemy tanks for the day (actually, I misremembered the date by a few days). In a period of heavy fighting war diaries were often incomplete but it was relatively quiet day so the diary is probably correct.

- Tommi

[Guest Big Time Software]

I wonder if it wasn't a M18, not a M36. I know that four were purchased and imported from Coration back into the US last year. Two had Russian diesel engines and the other two original US ones (I forget the make of these particular ones). They were heavily sought after. I know one guy personally that bid $50k for one and was passed on. I think they went for about $65k, which is quite high for US WWII armor (I knew a truck, trailer, and flamethrowing Sherman bundle that went for less than that!). In fact, we have a picture of one of those M18s in its "original" Croation state.

Go to the US link and the Misc. Armor pics section:

www.battlefront.com/resources/mvpics

Steve

[SS_PanzerLeader]

ok heres my two cents worth

this should add fuel to the fire :-P I have read this extensive thread regarding sighting differences and it appears to me that even if these results were 'guestimated' would this really have any significant impact on the overall play of the game- considering the many major issues that have already been addressed and solved regarding realism? I would think not IMHO , but I would like to point of that combat is highly unpredictable as we all know and there are probably numerous other 'factors' that could be taken into account to promote a marginal modifer. With this in mind and with the regard to hell cats withstanding any punishment _ heres what happened in this precise senario last night - which cost me the game (as I could only take three flags after this devastating encounter).

I was the axis force and working my way into a position to be effective, both with my armor in conjunction with my infantry. I complimented my movements with well placed smoke and suppressive fire all was going well....

Enter three hellcats on the ridge ( which I knew were coming but was not playing as I was expecting them - in other words I didnt set up to waste them on appearance, as this would cause a lame game) so ..

the hellcats launch an opening barrage -three hits on the tiger - imobilization - deflected , and top penetration ( i had just got done explaing the significance of this upper position to my son regarding armor penetration) SO scratch one tiger - also scratch one hannomag

sturm hunts to position to return fire - hits target which does nothing - Two hell cats rain down and one ricochets the other destroys -

simoultaeneously the other hell cat an sturm exchange as the sturm hunts into position

next turn hellcat destroys sturm,

proving to be a bleakday in the diary of the

AN SS panzer commander

my point that was my first real spanking by the pc would this sight modifer have helped me? no ... I hit them - they hit me

only.............

I died :-P

KUDOS to the AI

[Guest Lokesa]

No eating dogs... lol

[Richard III]

Hi Steve,

Those are great pics! IIRC the vehicle was described specifically as an M-36. Again IIRC all sides in the civil war had at least some Jacksons, most of which ended up scrapped without regard for their historical value under the Dayton treaties. At least one US armored unit took away a T-34/85 with them when leaving Bosnia.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Richard Yeah, they had all sorts of old stuff employed during the war, including stocks of captures WWII small arms. In fact, my dad secured a MINT early war Mauser Kar 98k in the late 1980s from Yugoslavia. It was captured stock when AG E surrendered (or was it AG Löhr when it surrendered, I forget?). All nicely preserved and in collector grade condition. I bet you that whatever they had left found the way to the front.

Steve