user1000 Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 I like the Demo, I didn't find any problems but 1 gripe. The Jagd iv's are able to knock out a speeding stuart from way far far away... I didn't see the distance or know if there is a way to measure it. That would be insanely hard for a tanker to do, trying to hit a tiny speeder like that from great distance, yet they nail them each time even when the tiny stuarts are at top speed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 You can measure the distance using the "Target" command. I think it's probably about 1000 meters (so maybe not as far as it looks), and the Jagd IV has one of the most accurate guns in the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 I've found that first shots tend to miss... except for those times when they don't. Maybe JpzIV gunner had a 50% chance of going high first shot and a 20% chance of falling short? But that still leaves that 30% chance in the middle where he's gonna tag you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1000 Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 2 or 3 shots first to judge distance on a stationary vehicle. the stuarts were flying. I suppose I was kind of in a straight line the whole time. Is there a way to zigzag the waypoint to throw the Jagd gunner off? I will try it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultradave Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Multiple waypoints, but be careful how you do it. If the turns are too sharp the tanks will tend to almost or completely stop and pivot before moving on, making them stationary targets. So if you set lots of waypoints in kind of a sweeping arc so that you get a wavy path, it will work better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, user1000 said: I like the Demo, I didn't find any problems but 1 gripe. The Jagd iv's are able to knock out a speeding stuart from way far far away... I didn't see the distance or know if there is a way to measure it. That would be insanely hard for a tanker to do, trying to hit a tiny speeder like that from great distance, yet they nail them each time even when the tiny stuarts are at top speed. Ahh, You also noticed the Modern Weapons finding it's way into CMx2 WWII Titles...Get use to it, as you will see more of these One-Shot Wonders in CM. Joe Edited April 2, 2016 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 27 minutes ago, JoMc67 said: Ahh, You also noticed the Modern Weapons finding it's way into CMx2 WWII Titles... Oh please. Clearly you have not played CMBS or you would not be making such a statement. The fire control in the modern game is wickedly fast and accurate. It doesn't even compare to the WW 2 titles. This has been hashed so often and so far no one has made a real case for gun accuracy being too high in the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 The odds of hitting a target moving towards the shooter are only slightly lower than a stationary target. A target moving laterally in relation to the shooter is a difficult shot but not nearly as impossible for WW2-era weaponry as some people think. A British wartime study calculated the first shot hit probability for the 17 pdr against a tank-sized target moving at 15 mph as 73% for head-on and 46% at 800 yards, 34% and 17% respectively at 1200 yards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, IanL said: Oh please. Clearly you have not played CMBS or you would not be making such a statement. The fire control in the modern game is wickedly fast and accurate. It doesn't even compare to the WW 2 titles. This has been hashed so often and so far no one has made a real case for gun accuracy being too high in the game. +1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said: The odds of hitting a target moving towards the shooter are only slightly lower than a stationary target. A target moving laterally in relation to the shooter is a difficult shot but not nearly as impossible for WW2-era weaponry as some people think. A British wartime study calculated the first shot hit probability for the 17 pdr against a tank-sized target moving at 15 mph as 73% for head-on and 46% at 800 yards, 34% and 17% respectively at 1200 yards. Those figures are particularly telling as US studies I've read considered the 17lbr specifically to be quite inaccurate and the reason they went with their own 76mm despite poorer penetrative capabilities. Which suggest better numbers for other weapons. Additionally, Germans trained their tank crews on firing on moving targets and were very proficient at this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Bud Backer said: Those figures are particularly telling as US studies I've read considered the 17lbr specifically to be quite inaccurate and the reason they went with their own 76mm despite poorer penetrative capabilities. Which suggest better numbers for other weapons. Additionally, Germans trained their tank crews on firing on moving targets and were very proficient at this. I don't recall 17 pdr APCBC being inaccurate. You may be thinking of 17 pdr APDS ammunition which preformed badly in several tests because of quality control issues. By way of comparison, the numbers for the Sherman 75mm cannon are 50% and 24% at 800 yards, 18% and 7% at 1200 yards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) BTW, the in-game accuracy is lower than the British estimates. I have tested Sherman 75mm accuracy against Panther tanks moving at Fast speed laterally at 500 meters and the first shot hit % was under 50 (granted, Fast is faster than 15 mph so maybe they are in line with the British numbers when speed is factored in, but I am not sure to what extent if any CM takes that into consideration). Edited April 2, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said: I don't recall 17 pdr APCBC being inaccurate. You may be thinking of 17 pdr APDS ammunition which preformed badly in several tests because of quality control issues. By way of comparison, the numbers for the Sherman 75mm cannon are 50% and 24% at 800 yards, 18% and 7% at 1200 yards. That's correct, it was APDS. You don't have 76mm stats handy by any chance, do you? Please don't spend a lot of time digging if you don't. Edited April 3, 2016 by Bud Backer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said: 17 pdr APDS ammunition which preformed badly in several tests because of quality control issues. Specifically, I believe this was put down to poor or uneven sabot petal separation. When the petals separated they way they were meant to the accuracy was fine. If not - which was the case of the batches in some of the trials - then the asymmetric drag created led to wild and inconsistent inaccuracy. The inconsistency was the worst bit. Consistent inaccuracy can be taken into account, but if you've no idea how the next round is going to behave compared to the previous one you're in big trouble. Regardless of round, the 17-pr also had viscous muzzle blast and flash, which made sensing rounds for the weapon commander highly difficult. Edited April 2, 2016 by JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Bud Backer said: US studies I've read considered the 17lbr specifically to be quite inaccurate... It is hard, reading this, not to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, but I will resist the temptation... Younger forumites can ask their granddads about her. Edited April 2, 2016 by Warts 'n' all 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 @Warts 'n' all 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Bud Backer said: You don't have 76mm stats handy by any chance, do you? Nope. I pulled the 17 pdr and 75mm numbers from WW2 Ballistics, which also provides a method to calculate the numbers for any projectile but it's a cumbersome, multi-step process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said: It is hard, reading this, not to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, but I will resist the temptation... Younger forumites can ask their granddads about her. LOL - I'm not convinced this was merely bias. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said: Nope. I pulled the 17 pdr and 75mm numbers from WW2 Ballistics, which also provides a method to calculate the numbers for any projectile but it's a cumbersome, multi-step process. I have been looking for that book for some time, Vanir. Any hot tips where to find a copy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Ruddd Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 A copy of WW2 is here, have not read it, 200+ pages: WWII Balistics 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtsjc1 Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 3 hours ago, Douglas Ruddd said: A copy of WW2 is here, have not read it, 200+ pages: WWII Balistics That was Rexford. He was an excellent source of info on the subject. Great reading if you're interested in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Trusting to luck in this game rarely works. If you figure there's a chance the enemy won't nail you if you race across an open field under their guns you should bear in mind that there's also a chance that he will. A 1-in-5 chance you'll be hit might mean he'll hit you the first time but miss the other four. What's that statistical observation? A dropped slice of pizza always lands sauce-side down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultradave Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 50-50-90 Given a 50-50 chance of two outcomes, the chances are 90% that the outcome least favorable to you will happen (sort of a "Murphy's Law of Probability") 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 I finally have the explanation for my wife's speeding tickets for the past 30 years. Thanks for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Thanks for the links guys - I was looking forward to pay for a legit copy and get some royalties into the pockets of the authors... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.