Ammo management and other Q?

[SimonFox]

Ok I have given myself a good go at the demo (that's more than 2-3hrs Fionn ) and have a few questions which maybe someone can comment on.

Firstly I have not put this in the replenishment thread because Steve probably won't go back there anyway and it is not strictly on the same topic. It seems pretty clear that by the end of a battle many units are down on ammo making management very important (as LOS has stated in another thread). I am not entirely clear in my mind as to how to acheive this yet. I would like to see crew served MG and support weapons in defensive missions start with a little more ammo to model the stockpiling in prepared positions (I understand this should be under the control of the scenario designer) though I am also aware that if you decide to redeploy these units there may be a limit to their carrying capacity (yea I know- more complexity). I am uncertain as to how units control the weight/volume of their fire. It would be nice to be able to differentiate between "keeping their heads down" light suppression (to save ammo) and "giving them everything" against a juicy target. This especially applies to support weapons. I would like to distinguish between harassment fire and more deliberate fire both with mortars and MGs. In the LD scenario I have found MGs and mortars quite useful for keeping vehicles buttoned up but you shouldn't need to blast them for the full turn. With the mortar crews (and the vehicles) the pause command only seems to affect movement not firing so you can't use this as a crude control.

Secondly how do you cancel an ambush marker?

Thirdly, I raised this on another thread but no one answered it (boohoo) so I will stick it in here. It seems to me that HQ units should be made to expose themselves to issue orders for realism's sake. After all officers had a very high casualty rate in real life. Possibly if you issue a movement order to a unit its associated HQ could be automatically unhid (if hidden) though possibly not for fire orders or alternatively its exposure rating elevated? As an opponent if you could spot the HQ you could try and take them out- pretty important for CM2 I would think

Fourthly, some comments have been made regarding the facing of armoured vehicles to take advantage of the additional angles of the armour. I have found that when I have tried this the vehicles reorient themselves during the turn while engaging head on targets. On the same subject for purposes of accuracy are vehicles rotating on the spot considered to be firing on the move or stationary?

Fifthly, as this is the 11-11-99 (see that works everywhere, even for those who have their dates 'arse-about' ) to demonstrate that war is part of the human condition (unfortunately) Pericles (495-429BC) said long ago:

"For heroes have the whole world as their tomb;

and in lands far from their own,

where the column with its epitaph declares it,

there is enshrined in every breath a record

rewritten with no tablets to preserve it,

except that of the heart.

Please take as your model,

and judging happiness to be the fruit of freedom,

and freedom of valour,

never decline the dangers of war."

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Simon,

The starting ammo for crew served weapons can be inceased, up to 50% I think, if the scenario designer wishes it to be so. I gave the 60mm mortars in Last Defense just about that. That is one reason so many HTs are getting nailed. Between the three I think there were over 120 rounds of 60mm ammo. That is a lot Not sure what happens when you go to move. I *think* only the normal max is taken with it, but I could be wrong.

Units control their own volume of fire, mostly due to range, but also experience. Green guys tend to unload a bit too much! I think you are asking for a bit too much micromanagement of ammo management though. If you target an unbuttoned tank, and it buttons up, your MGs/Mortars will stop firing.

The Ambush Marker is treated as if it is a Target. Just hit the "x" key.

Oooo, I think my HQ units are plenty exposed as is. I rarely have an HQ unit come off without a casualty. On the attack, or being assaulted, I often lose HQs completely. I don't think more needs to be done here. The C&C range is already simulating what needs to be simulated (i.e. shouting, hand signal, and runner range).

In the thread about armor angle positioning I think it was pointed out that this is flawed gamer logic. Tankers pointed their frontal armor straight at the threat. That was SoP. These guys most often than not didn't have a clue about some of the things we wargmers know about. Firing while rotating the hull is firing on the move, but not too bad (velocity is a big factor, so this isn't a big deal here).

Yes, quite unfortunately. For as much as I enjoy wargaming and most things military, it is an unfortunate waste of human life and resources. But, it does have its place in the evolutionary process of human society, so it will be with us for a LONG time still.

Steve

[Kevin Peltz]

Steve:

"...this is flawed gamer logic...That was SoP..."

There are several pages in "Tiger Fibel" devoted to maneuvering and positioning your tank to present a ten- or two o'clock aspect whenever possible- the tank commander even had special terms he used so that when an order was given, there was no confusion amongst the crew as to what he wanted done.

[C Colapietro]

Steve:

"...several pages in "Tiger Fibel" devoted to ..."

I have to agree with KP on this - asuuming that "Tiger Fibel" is really a translation of an issued Tiger manual. As far as I know, that is the claim. (The cartoons are too bizzare to be fabricated...!) From what I recall (I dont have it with me at the moment) this manual is very clear about the effects of angle of impact both on defense and offense.

[Mike D]

Both Kevin and C above are correct. The TigerFibel training manual used to train Tiger I crews goes into explicit detail about how to angle one's forward armour off axis with respect to facing directly toward an enemy tank or AT gun in order to maximize armour thickness. The fact that it is mentioned much more than "just as a passing thought", would seem to definitely indicate that this methodology was used in combat by German tank crews.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Guest Big Time Software]

Learn something new everyday Not hard for us to change, we just didn't think this was a standard part of combat. What is the opinion here... was this *JUST* a Tiger thing, or did everybody in all nations practice this sort of move?

Additional note -> Charles points out that the Tiger had an advantage over other tanks, and that is that its side armor was pretty damned good. If a Panther tried to play the same angle game, it would likely be putting itself at increased risk of a flank kill shot. The Tiger, on the other hand, was like a big armored box.

So we are very skeptical that this one example of Tiger angling should be applied to everybody. That then begs the question if we should bother special casing one or two tanks based on a training manaual's statement of ideal conditions (remember, just because a training manual says something, doesn't mean that it was used in the field).

Steve

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

[Kevin Peltz]

I would think, by extrapolation, that it would apply to all German panzers and crews. As far as everyone else, I have no proof one way or the other. It definitely is something that would be tied to training and experience.

[Bastables]

Kevin's idea of all german vehicles whould perhaps be easier to implament. But there were 2 fibels, Panther and the Tiger. Both indicated the ten and two o'clock postionings to gain maximum hull protection. Presumable the Panther crews told their mates in the 2nd battalion. And the fibels were attempts by Gurdian (sorry cannot spell) to convey the information already in german standred manuals/SOP in an intuiative manner eg the mad cartoon's ie treating the Maybach like a lady so when it come time to turn her on she's ready to go . Pherhaps only vet crews should preform it? (inclining the hull)

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

[C Colapietro]

The issue may not be to change the AI to angle the tanks, but simply not to override a direct rotate command. This could be tied to crew experience I suppose

With regards to other nations doctrine, I believe the Tiger manual is the only one I own. Also, from what I've gathered in doing some related research, the germans were the only force that really had a solid doctrine for their armor. Perhaps someone can dispute this with backup literature - if so I'd love to see it for my own edification. I've had a very difficult time locating anything other than anecdotal writings that give a clear picture of American platoon level doctrine for example.

There must be surviving crew training manuals around somewhere...

[Guest Big Time Software]

You can get reprints of US manuals from Portrayal Press for nearly every vehicle. They concentrate mostly on TMs and not FMs, so they might not have exactly what is being looked for here. I have two Weasel TMs and a tank driving TM from them, and all are fantatsic.

I have checked out what my TM 21-306 Manual for the Full-Track Vehicle Driver (August 1946) has to say about vehicle facing:

"When fighting against enemy infantry armed with antitank weapons, keep alert. Swing your vehicle in the direction of the nearest antitank gunner. This places your heaviest armor toward the weapon, and gives you a chance to spary him with machine-gun fire or with the flame thrower" [NOTE: this TM is for all tracked armored vehicles, hence MG or FT mentioned]

There is plenty of talk/diagrams about hull down, concealment, firing on the move, taking advantage of natural cover, etc. but other than the above, nothing more about facing.

Just more food for thought.

Steve

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I think that in general you would face the threat. The Tiger I is one of the very, very few AFVs that had side armor just as thick as the front armor. IMO, they woud have done better placing all that extra weight up front to begin with...

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[Lee]

Hmm... As Steve points, out not all German tanks had

the advantage of the tiger's impressive side armor, thus

making the move more risky for lesser armored machines.

I would say include this tactic for any German vehicle

at or above the tiger's side armor level, but only for

crews at the veteran or higher level of experience/skill.

This would very nicely simulate the specialized training

of the German heavy tank crews in this maneuver

and yet only apply to crews with enough nerve and skill

to try such a tactic. I think it's important to include

this special tank crew behavior, even if it only apllies

to a fairly limited number of tanks/tank destroyers.

It adds another layer to that very important depth and subtlety

of the battlefield environment that CM is becoming famous

for (already famous for those of us in the know ).

And furthermore, it's the sort of realistic refinement

to the combat model that can and will have a significant effect

on your average tactical engagement involving heavy German armor.

Thus, I think it's well worth including.

[Fionn]

Oh I DEFINITELY want a part of this thread .

This "11 o'clock offset" was a German tactic and is mentioned in both the Pantherfibel and the Tigerfibel. It isn't mentioned overtly in articles on the Jagdpanther etc BUT it is mentioned in passing insofar as "crewmen should point directly at the target and not offset" (to increase armour effective thickness).

If I had my way ALL German tankers would do the 11 o'clock offset thing.

I do think it should be tied to experience as follows though:

Conscript and Green = NO offset to target

Regular = 10 degree offset

Veteran = 20 degree

Crack and Elite = 30 degree offset

I calculated this out when I got the Tigerfibel first and I calculated that 30 degrees is the most effective angle SINCE it yields a SIXTY degree offset to the side armour thus DOUBLING its effective thickness to 160mm (AND also increasing likelihood of ricochets)..

For the Tiger 45 degrees is probably the BEST offset BUT for most German tanks 30 degrees is the best offset since it greatly reduces the risk of side hits while doubling side effective thickness.

45 degrees offset has the effect of increasing the risk of side hits AND only increasing side effective thickness 41%...

IF a sliding scale can be implemented then I think my linking of degrees offset to experience would work out very nicely

So, in summary, I believe this was standard doctrine taught in ALL schools from at least 1942 onwards in Germany. It should NOT apply to other nations regardless of the experience level of the crews as I've seen no proof any Allied tank crews or thinkers ever thought much about it.

I think it should go in but it should be gradiated to represent the fact that beginners would simply turn to the threat and forget their training while vets would go to 20 or 30 degrees to get the best angle possible.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[C Colapietro]

I don't buy the side armor thickness argument - a 20 deg offset to a threat presents a small 70 deg offset side target - hardly a likely penetration. However this is all hidsight and I don't know if the tank crews actually followed the offset doctrine in combat situations anyway.

On a related point, I believe it was definately german doctrine at least as early as the opening rounds of North Aftrica to zig-zag unpredictably at -30 to 30 degrees (? maybe less) when approaching a threat to both present a laterally moving target, and to give a poor frontal deflection. Unfortunately I'm on the road and dont have the references to back this up, so take this info with that in mind. I'll see what I can find when I get home. German tankers were forbidden to fire on the move, so this did not affect targeting in theory. If a source to back this can be found it would be a nice addition given the detailed ballistic modelling in CM, even if it waits until post-release. The more I think about it, this may make more sense in a long-range tank battle where multiple platoons are leap-frogging.

Any ideas?

[Kevin Peltz]

I would think the "10 to 2" tactic would be more beneficial to tanks that WEREN'T as well protected as the Tiger. I understand the danger of giving somebody a better flank shot at you if you do offset, but, in game turns, that would be another tactical decision a player could make. He would have to take circumstances into account, just as was done in reality. For example, maybe you should offset to your ten o'clock against the threat ahead of you, but do you risk it when you have an empty stretch of terrain 500m long with a wood at the end of it, at your eight o'clock- something you don't see might be in there. So, what's the bigger threat, and what chance do you want to take?

[Bastables]

Inclining the hull is not just about gaining greater armour protection, it enables a faster sight picture to be gained by the gunner due to the fact the commader (for eg)sighting a enemy veh at 9:00 gives the order for the gunner to begin tranversing the turrent anticlockwise. And then give the order for the driver to incline to 11:00. Tada turrent and hull moving at the same time negates/minimises the relativly slow turrent rotation of 17sec/360deg to the right and 19sec/360deg to the left (Panther) and the even worse hand cranking of the PIV J. Pure supposition but the added benifit of faster Time on target due to inclining whould have been even more useful in the old hand cranked PIII's and earlier PIV, so maybe this was originally for faster reaction time as opposed to gain a armour multiplier. After all the Germans did not manufacture slope armour until after the meeting the T34.

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

[Lee]

I like the implementation proposed by Fionn on this issue.

This would very nicely simulate what I mentioned in

my post about only the more experienced crews really

benefitting fully from the use of this advanced tactic.

By graduating the offset based on skill you simulate the

difference between moderately skilled tank crews and

real pros that would use maximum practical offset to

it's full advantage.

Of course, there is one issue that comes up when you

add this sort of thing to the AI. What if you anticipate

a threat coming from the flank where an offset would

present far too much exposure to a clean high angle shot

on your side armor? In this case you may very well

want the crew to face the frontal threat square rather

than take the risk of presenting an ideal flank shot

to a threat that might pop out of the woods at any moment

on your right or left front quarter. This could be

addressd by adding a toggle command that could be

changed for each turn (this would only apply

to the order

menus of tanks and such). The command would be something

like "Use/Do not use armor offset".

But, even if Steve and Charles chose not to add this

additional menu command option, I think there's enough

evidence and importance to this German tank tactic that

it should be included in CM. And, on the whole, it

wouldn't hurt the German commander in most situations to

have it implemented. So the extra menu option wouldn't

be essential.

I think this is an example of where a tweak to the

AI will really benefit the historical and tactical

realism of CM.

As to exactly which tanks this tactic was used in by

the Germans, I don't know. But it would seem that it

was at least used by the heavy German armor.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Fionn (and others): "...this was standard doctrine taught in ALL schools from at least 1942 onwards in Germany."

Sorry, but I just don't buy into it that this was "standard doctrine taught in ALL schools" and a 'wide spread practice'. Where do you get this information?

I haven't seen anyone quote more than a couple of sources that this was a STANDARD tactic at all. Also keep in mind that a lot of stuff was printed in training manuals that was quickly forgotten when in combat.

IMHO, this is just more fuel on the fire of the super-panzer myth. Leave it out someone can come up with some REAL proof that this was a WIDE spread practice for any type of crew. Then convice me that the veteran allied crews were so dumb as to not notice and copy this after watching the Germans do this for 3 years...

Also, I think it is worth noting that the slope effect we are all talking about in great detail was NOT apprecated nearly as much during WW2 as it is now. If the Germans and other HAD know of the slope effect had nearly as much influence on shot they surely would never had designed the Tiger as it was, nor many other tanks with minimal slope to their armor. THIS IS DOCUMENTED.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-12-99).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-12-99).]

[Pixman]

Steve wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These guys most often than not didn't have a clue about some of the things we wargmers know about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was referring to the average grunt's knowledge of ballistics, armor facing, penetration, etc. I can give you a first hand example.

I interviewed a guy to be an intern on my Y2K project. He was an ex-combat engineer in the Marine Corp (E5). Very smart guy, excellent student. In the interview he started telling me that he was an engineer and I said, "Oh, you deal with explosives, mines, road blocks, bridges, roads, fortifications, entrenchments, etc." When he asked how I knew all of that, I told him from wargaming and we went on to discuss armor, ballistics, weapons systems and tactics. He said, "Man, you know more about this stuff than the guys I served with -- including some officers"

Given the clear fact that my knowledge in these areas is much less than that of many others on this board, it just goes to show how educational this wargaming community really is. I never come to this board without learning something new.

Pixman

[Bastables]

Scott they did appreciate the importance of sloped armour, remember the Tigger was on the drawing board in 1937. Sloped armour began occuring on German chassis after experiance with the T34 sloped armour ie Panther, Jagdpanzer IV, Hertzer and the Kingtiger. The tigger was rushed from the drawing board to the factories. The crisis being such that changes to the basic design of the Tigger chassis were bypassed in an effort to get it into production as soon as possible. Although they did upgrade to the overhanging gun=8.8cm KwK36 L/56

If angles were not recognised as a armour multiplier during WWII, why is it that in the Field Manuals (the fibels) the crew are told to incline the hull to gain maximum armour protection for the hull? Why does it include scematics on the effect of AP shot striking armour plate at various angles? And dammit why at the German tank gunnary ranges did they test fire at armour plates set a 30degs from the vertical? why not just have the armour plates at 0degs like the tests at Aberdeen (Britin)?

Also the Fibels are not training manuals! They were Guderian meathod of getting the important information out to his Panzer troops which were buried in the obtuse training/maintenance manuals. And therfore used soldier slang, rhyming motto's and salacious cartoons.

Sorry Scott it's late please forgive the ranting tone. I'm too tired for a rewrite.

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

[C Colapietro]

I suppose this really breaks down into two different issues. 1) Did the Germans (American, Brits etc) understand the effect of angle of impact on penetration at given priods. 2) Did troops in the field take this into account?

I believe the answer to 1) is a resounding yes across the board. This was VERY well understood by the turn of the century from naval research. Tank armor/weapons were developed with the benefit of the experience from their well-developed naval counterparts.

The Germans do leave behind evidence that this was intended to taken into account by the tactics of the time.

The answer to 2) seems to be quite up in the air. We seem to have posters with access to some good sources - how about some solid anecdotal evidence one way or another. Of course anecdotal evidence is not very reliable, but in a case like this the mere mention of employing the tactic would provide some answers.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the more I think about this the more I think that this issue applies more to a long range Armor vs Armor battle where weaving on the approach for example would give a benefit in protection, especially at longer ranges. The situations in CM employ the armor in a close support role, a very different situation.

Hit those books! Anybody have some good WWII videos with tanks in CS? Are they head-on, or does the body follow the barrel?

[C Colapietro]

Regarding Fionn's solution, I personally don't like it. It puts a specific behavior to units that is completely fabricated.

I really think that simply not overriding a direct order to face the tank would do the trick, with the appropriate possibility of the crew ignoring this order and re-facing anyway based on experience.

This puts things back into the commanders hands - There may be many things you do as a commander that are not representative of WWII tactics of the time, but may make the battle go your way. This is the point of gaming - could I do better than historical. CM adds the nice limitation that the troops may not always be ready to execute your ideal plan...

[Beamup]

I disagree with C.C. The behavior Fionn suggests does not seem contrived at all to me, IMHO it seems quite realistic. After all, you're supposed to be at the platoon/company leader scale - it's not really likely that a company commander would say "Hey Sarge, target that Tiger over there, and make sure you rotate the hull." More probable would be "Hey

Joe Tank Commander, kill that Tiger!" and then the _tank commander_ decides how to go about it. So the angle should be under the control of the unit itself, i.e. the TacAI. So I think Fionn's suggested system is the way to go, since my knowledge (limited compared to some here, but reasonably accurate) suggests that German tankers, at least, did use this tactic.

[C Colapietro]

I agree that the Company Commander would not be directing the individual tanks, however the tank platoon commander would (and would be the one issuing the orders), and would have influence over how the individal tanks in the platoon behaved.

While I'm the first to stand up and say that the tactic was known by the Germans, I disagree that any evidence has been presented to suggest that it was actually ever used in the field, especially in a close support context.

Not to nit-pick - I just find this to be a very intersting topic.

[Fionn]

Scott,

On this topic you are well wrong buddy ... This EXACT tactic is explored in detail in BOTH the Tiger and Panther manuals. It is also mentioned in tactical articles written by German officers PRIOR to Kursk.

It was widespread. I, personally, have three original sources which go into this in great detail. Guderian thought it so important he devoted a page of his manual to it. Hell he devotes only a page to engine management so this was as important as that and we know how important engine management was to Tigers and Panthers.

It can be proven to be SOP for Tiger and Panther crews (half the tank force) and can be assumed to be the same for Pz IV crews since they were taught in the same schools.

Scott, if you know Guderian's manuals you'll know that their main AIM was to cut all the useless training crap and focus on what the guys needed to know. That this issue is in there proves its importance. Do you have either of these manuals yourself Scott? If you have then I'd expect you to instantly realise that if they're in the manuals then they were very important and not esoteric. If you don't have them then I think an investment is in order . The manuals are great

Scott, you're mixing slope and offset. Also, can I point out that I clearly stated that I was only certain of its use and acknowledgement from 42/early 43 onwards. (Germans did a lot of work on slopes and offsets in 41 and 42 when I am saying this came to light ( along with the Panther's design) ).

Sorry Scott but this is not some "uber-panzer" related thing. You should know I don't buy into those myths and I'm not likely to be won over by them for something like this. WHEN, however, I see it mentioned in 2 manuals, several officer's tactical lesson summaries and some after action report THEN I say that it was used and should be modelled.

Ooh, someone mentioned the Hetzer.. Trivia time:

1. What nation was the Hetzer design stolen from?

2. What was the name of the nation's AFV that eventually became the Hetzer?

3. How many Pz IVs could have been armoured for every Hetzer armoured ?

These would be really popular tank trivia questions if anyone ever held a tank trivia quiz (I wish they did somewhere ;( ).

Colapietro...

I've seen use of offset by German tanks remarked upon by British unit histories in North Africa and in Italy. The officers continually mentioned that German individual training was better than theirs since the Germans used offset while their tank drivers didn't understand the importance of it..

I've seen it mentioned in tactical write-ups by german officers for crews coming to the front.. I've seen it in the fibel. I've seen it mentioned for assault guns (as something to avoid.. the tone used was such that it was clear they were telling their assault gun crews to UNLEARN some conventional wisdom).

I'm really, really satisfied that it was used. Of course only vet crews etc probably used it to its greatest efficiency but it was used.

Colapietro/... Your statement that my solution uses a fabrication is plain wrong. I think I've shown above some of the documentary evidence backing my belief from both German and UK sources (not US or Russian sources it must be noted). You're being disingenuous.

Colapietro, your understanding of what a tank platoon commander could influence is unfortunately grossly incorrect. A tank platoon commander in combat might, at best, be able to order his platoon to orient east,north, south or west or "towards where the road comes out of the village" but there's simply no way he would set facings with an accuracy in the degree level.

A lot of wargamers think these sorts of things were common in war but they have got that from playing wargames. If you really want I'll ask an M1 tanker about this. After he's finished laughing after remembering all the horror stories he's told me about what happened in the Gulf War when things got a bit close and personal he'll tell you you are wrong in what you think was achievable then.

hell, it can't be achieved NOW with GPS etc and it sure couldn';t be achieved then.

A simple rule for ALL gamers and military historians. Once a unit is committed to battle the ONLY orders from 1 or 2 levels up the chain of command to which it can respond (realistically) are those which are most general and most basic. e.g. Fall back, turn east.. There's none of this platoon commander telling his platoon sergeant to rotate 22 degrees left. The platoon commander is BUSY fighting his own tank. He's too busy doing that to worry about all the other tanks and keep such a close eye on them.

Why do you think the Soviet union has the battalion 2nd in command in a JEEP? Simple, if the battalion CO gets killed in his tank or AFV then the 2ndIC (XO) will be able to sort out the mess SINCE he isn't and CAN'T be involved in the fighting. If the battalion CO is dead odds are the situation is bad so the XO NEEDS to be free of all distraction to sort it out, hence he's in a little jeep or CP far behind the front.

If that's the way the hard-driving Soviet doctrine does it then you gotta realise there's some truth to what I'm saying.

I'm sorry man but your opinions of what are and aren't possible with respect to orders are just wrong.

Ps.. Go check out some British tactical appreciations of German tank usage and you'll see they mention it commonly in Italy and North Africa and lament the fact their guys weren't clued in enough to use it.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers