Heavy AT Gun Concealment Test

[Gazmaps]

Hello,

I ran some tests on the 88mm Flak, 88m Pak 43 and 75mm AT guns.

Both 88 variety are spotted out past 1000m - but remain hidden past 1500m.

The 88mm Pak43 remain hidden for marginally longer than the 88mm Flaks.

I have just rerun the tests on suggestions trenches are more appropriate than foxholes. Havent really quantified the impact - but seems trenches are more quickly spotted even out to 1000m.

I also placed H/T in the test as well. The Half Tracks and the 88mm Flaks appear to be spotted at about the same speed at the same ranges.

Hence their doe snot seem much difference between spotting of Flak88 and H/T. - Youd think a concealed AT gun would be better concealed and dug in?

AT Gun Concealment Tests

Game Settings
2 player Hotseat, Iron Setting

Map Settings

1200m wide by 1600m Deep Map

Target End of map - Light Forest with 2 x Trees (Foliage) - approx 5 action spots deep

Firing lines marked with dirt at intervals running across width if map.

Tall Walls dividing Firing Lines complete length of map. No change to Ground Tiles outside of firing lines and target areas

Unit Settings

All Observers are US FO Squads (3 man squad with one set of Binos)

All Targets and Observers set to Regular, Fit, High, 0 leadership bonus 

All targets places in foxholes in Action spot on edge of woodland area - so in cover. 

All Targets set to hide.

Note: both tests run about 3 or 4 times - results in the same ball park most times - though with some oddities like a Pak 43 not being spotted at all at 450m on one occasion - maybe reposistoning of gun to or observer at start up that blocked LOS behind Trees?...

1st Run of Spotting tests (This was run twice with similar main pattern observable on both runs) Test run for 10mins.

450m - 2 x 88mm Flak - 1st Contact 3 sec, 2nd Contact 22 Sec, 1st Full Id 29 Sec, 2nd Full Id 58 Sec
450m - 2 x 20mm Light Flak - No Contacts or Spots for 10mins

1052m - 2 x 88mm Flak - 1st Contact 20 sec, 1st Full Id 35 Sec, 2nd Full Id 40 Sec
1052m - 2 x 20mm Light Flak - No Contacts or Spots for 10mins

1650m - 2 x 88mm Flak - No Contacts or Spots for 10mins
1650m - 2 x 20mm Light Flak - No Contacts or Spots for 10mins

Control Group (Clear Gnd no trees)

450m - 1 x 88mm Flak - 1st Full Id 2 Sec
1052m - 1 x 88mm Flak - 1st Full Id 4 Sec

Conclusions 

88mm Flaks receive no major concealment bonus upto at least 1000m. Some bonus applied to being in concealment - 
but all 88mm Flaks will be detected upto at least 1000m in under 60 secs even if in concealed position. 

2nd Run of Spotting tests (Same as first run but testing 75mm AT and 88mm AT (not Flak))

450m - 2 x Pak 43/41 88mm AT - 1st Full Id 9 Sec, 2nd Contact 2min35Sec, 2nd Full Id 2min41Sec
450m - 2 x 75mm AT - No Contacts or Spots for 15mins

1052m - 2 x Pak 43/41 88mm AT - 1st Full Id 4min34Sec, 2nd Gun not identified or detected after 15min - Possible observe LOS blocked by trees)
1052m - 2 x 75mm AT - No Contacts or Spots for 15mins

1650m - 2 x Pak 43/41 88mm AT - No Contacts or Spots for 15mins
1650m - 2 x 75mm AT - No Contacts or Spots for 15mins

Conclusions 
88mm AT guns recieve higher concealment bonus than 88mm flaks, while 75mm AT guns appear to have far superior concealment bonus 

Hello,

I Have some observations from CMBN games that if the community is in agreement will be corrected in CMFB.

Ive really enjoyed CM - particularly in Huge Maps and scenarios and love playing with a wide range of units and tactics.

Ive experimented a lot lately with H/ T and AT guns.

Ive noted the common thread on H / T gunners but will not comment except to add that I think H/T gunners will not engage targets at ranges > 200m
very often. They do not appear to area fire out past 300m or so. They also do not seem to spot well and when they do spot and engage, tend to have low 
volume of fire (but I ve not tested or looked into this in detail - just basic observations from a number of H2H games). 

I think the observations on AT guns will be more relevant to CMFB - due to the larger maps and nature of the units and terrain it is set in.

While playing with AT guns (notably 88mm Flak - I had 4 in one particular game) I found them to be easily detectable and destroyed out past 1000m by my 
Human opponent (who was also slightly disappointed by this - but art'yd them anyway :)) 

They where placed in light woods with foliage cover and in foxholes.

I ran some tests - which Ill post in the CMBN section.

Untill getting to between 1000 and 1600m 88mm Flak guns get little concealment bonus (even if in concealment and hiding)

88mm (Pak 43 AT Guns) get a slightly improved bonus but will also typically be identified within 2mins up to 1000m

75mm AT Guns and 20mm Flaks remained concealed at ranges starting at 450m (did not test at shorter ranges)

So my questions / assumptions are;

1. Im assuming this has likely not been changed in CMFB?
2. I believe the larger AT guns should get some better concealment bonus. What do other players think?
3.  If agreed what in reality would have been real life ranges these heavy AT guns could remain concealed? I would think a lot closer in than 1000m - 
especially if in concealing terrain such as woods.
4. Should spotting times be increased as well as reduction in spotting range?

Now - both 88mm variants are big boys - but 1000m - especially if dug in and camouflaged is a long way to be spotted.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/9939582803_9db6f87bc9_b.jpg
http://i1.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/PaK-431.jpg
 

 

 

 

 

 

Spotting Tests for Heavy AT Guns as follows

[RockinHarry]

Like in your CMFB thread already elaborated, the one other spotting variable to be considered is getting the guns (or AFV...) silhouette/footprint lowered. Using trenches or foxholes is better used for any ammo bearing teams IMO. The concealment in a forest only becomes viable, when also considering the ground terrain type, which I think does more for concealment than trees  (trunks) actually do, yet the trunks help when searching for key holed positions.

So with regard to the german barn door sized AT guns, I´d likely do some tests again with guns placed in "hull down" positions and any combination of ground terrain tiles (high grass, brush, light & heavy forest), compare with your initial test setup and see if it makes a difference.

Edit: Here´s a CMBN file I used for testing various hull down positions for AT guns created in the map editor. It´s also a firing range for testing engagement vs. a Plt. of attacking Sherman tanks under AI control.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c7xtzgu9tdhmcpb/0%21_At%20gun%20position%20test.btt?dl=0

Edited April 15, 2016 by RockinHarry

[womble]

 

3 hours ago, Gazmaps said:

All targets places in foxholes in Action spot on edge of woodland area - so in cover. 

Not "cover", "concealment". Big difference.

And they're not even really in concealment. There's less than 4m of ground cover between them and the observer, and "Light Forest" isn't tall (unlike heavy PaK). Yes, they're in an AS with a different terrain type, but that makes very little difference to something that tall. Compare the difficulty of spotting a PaK36/38 in a wheat field to spotting a taller asset: height matters. Your results are unsurprising for such behemoths given your parameters.

The "unmoved ATG" concealment bonus only works as a "multiplier" to concealment already present for the weapon; an ATG in an open short grass field won't get much, if any, benefit from it. And that's effectively what you're offering the guns in this case. Push them back into the woods until they can only just see out (i.e. one AS less deep than when they can't see out; don't have the crew Hiding or you might not see anything at all...) and if you don't see a difference then, perhaps you have a point. Perhaps. Or it might just be that the things are so bloomin' tall the actual ground type makes little or no difference and you need "tall" stuff like Bocage/FB-style hedges and bushes and scrub to give them a chance of staying hidden.

The thing is, your tests don't match my experience, when I've had ATGs, including PaK43, remain undiscovered and thunderously lethal when properly sited behind scrub and hedges. I'd personally leave the fortifications out of any refinement you try with this test, since all they can do is confuse the matter.

 

 

 

[Gazmaps]

On 15 April 2016 at 4:57 PM, womble said:

 

Not "cover", "concealment". Big differance

 

Actually I'd argue foxholes do provide cover and the idea of putting them in the wood line gives them concealment. So they have cover and concealment +++++

i reran ran the tests as Rocking Harry suggested by creating 1m depressions using the ditch locking.

this meant the 88s went from been detected then spotted from instantly to about 30 secs instead though I only did a handful of individual tests.

i found putting them behind bocage kept the concealed for roughly 3 mins.

 

 

[Anthony P.]

Well, as has been pointed out numerous times, an 88 is huge. Expecting it to stay concealed like a Pak40 is to expect a miracle.

[Erwin]

The problem with 88mm or thinnish-skinned vehicles with such guns (Nashorn etc) is that they were supposed to be used at long range only.  1000m is like point blank for them.  It's only an issue in CM2 cos nearly all the maps tend to be smallish.  You really want to use em at 2Km-3Km + range.

[Bulletpoint]

6 hours ago, Gazmaps said:

Actually I'd argue foxholes do provide cover

I don't think so. The gun itself just sits on the top of the ground and most of the crew don't enter the foxholes. To dig in AT guns, you need trenches. And yes, trenches are spotted at long distances, which is a whole different discussion, but did you test if the actual gun is also spotted, or just the trench tiles ?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I did some AT gun spotting tests a couple years ago and if memory serves trenches conferred a small but noticable concealment bonus on AT guns. I do not recall the trenches being spotted before the gun. Foxholes appeared to have no effect.

[Sailor Malan2]

The spotting times in this test seem to imply that there is little hindrance to detecting the presence of the unit (things are detected in seconds, which means that they are obvious), but there is some delay in deciding what they are. Thus is counterintuitive. The sort of thing that enables detection without identification would be movement in the corner of your eye, or tracks on the ground. Identification relies on 'seeing' the object (you can't deduce the nature of an AT gun via some unexpected flash off a shiny surface). 

Thus it seems the concealment of ATs vs detection is working wrong. The detection should be low probability, but if you detect it, it should be quick to ID. In other words, I would expect the concealment to hinder the detection much more than ID (assuming ID is only possible once detected)...

At 1000m, a gun should only be detected if there is an error in its concealment, until it fires IMHO. In other words, competent troops in concealed terrain in a fox hole or trench should not be spotted most of the time.  I would think you would need to get to say 300m before detection goes up much.

For non-emplaced guns in trees, I would expect maybe a small detection at 1000m (5 or 10% per minute from a good spotter), which gives 50% chance to see within 6-7 mins, per spotter.

Once an 88 fires, it it likely to be spotted within 1000m pretty much by anyone looking in the right direction (flash/smoke), but smaller guns should be much harder.

[Anthony P.]

Again, a Flak 88 is a long range weapon. Far longer ranges than encountered in CM. If you plan to use them at below 2000m range, you're doing it wrong unless you've found a very keyholed position to place it in. Camouflage can only do so much when you're applying it to something that's over 2m tall and almost 6m long. When enormous features start popping up, someone will whip out their binos, take a look, see netting and a long barrel, and remember that neither of those are plants that grow in nature.

[Michael Emrys]

7 hours ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

...but there is some delay in deciding what they are. Thus is counterintuitive.

I disagree. There is an intermediate stage in spotting where you definitely recognize that it is a man made object (i.e., "not a tree") but you need to look at it a while before you start to get a strong enough impression to figure out whether it is a pillbox, a tank, or a large gun. Or even just a farmer's shed.

Michael

[Sailor Malan2]

40 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

I disagree. There is an intermediate stage in spotting where you definitely recognize that it is a man made object (i.e., "not a tree") but you need to look at it a while before you start to get a strong enough impression to figure out whether it is a pillbox, a tank, or a large gun. Or even just a farmer's shed.

Michael

But being able to see the camo as a man made object is a symptom of poor camouflage At 1km range, and time to emplace, there is little reason to be spottable quickly. 20 or 30 secs to spot from a standing start is pretty quick. I would challenge you to spot a green car parked under trees that far away that quickly (without knowing where to look). One of the major aims of concealment is to break up the outline. Don't forget that the circumference of circle about you of radius 1km is over 6km. Even if the likely enemy positions are only 120 degrees thats still 2km to look at, and of course no one says the enemy is at 1km. A 120 degree slice from 300 m to 1,5km has an area of 7million sq m

[Anthony P.]

Your green car is 6m long and over 2m high? Give me a break. At a certain point it doesn't matter how good you are at camouflaging your 88, you'll be having to toss so much camo netting and else on it that the camouflage alone will make it stand out, albeit somewhat less than if there'd been no camouflage. You're employing the 88 incorrectly and then complaining that it doesn't work out for you.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Anthony P.

[Michael Emrys]

58 minutes ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

But being able to see the camo as a man made object is a symptom of poor camouflage At 1km range, and time to emplace, there is little reason to be spottable quickly. 20 or 30 secs to spot from a standing start is pretty quick. I would challenge you to spot a green car parked under trees that far away that quickly (without knowing where to look). One of the major aims of concealment is to break up the outline. Don't forget that the circumference of circle about you of radius 1km is over 6km. Even if the likely enemy positions are only 120 degrees thats still 2km to look at, and of course no one says the enemy is at 1km. A 120 degree slice from 300 m to 1,5km has an area of 7million sq m

I don't disagree with any of that, but it is a different matter from the one I was addressing. And that is the time lag between spotting something and identifying what it is.

Michael

[Gazmaps]

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Your green car is 6m long and over 2m high? Give me a break.

I'm wondering where your getting 6 x2m from?

Id expect the frontal aspect of an 88mm Flak to be approx 2m x 2m (if a gunshield is attached which they seem to be in the game). Are you referring to the barrel length when you say 6m?

1. I'm guessing the barrel is approx 400mm diameter where it leaves the gun shield - then likely tapers out to the "pointy end" i.e business end of the weapon and I suspect is maybe 200mm in diameter. So in other words about 4m of the gun (assuming a 6m barrel length is less than 1/2m wide). Not sure if your used to looking at things 1000m away - but picking out small log sized objects is not that easy - of course this is more difficult if its in a tree line - you typically have no obvious silhouette and will "not be skylined"

2. . Point 1 above is a pretty redundant exercise however - as if you are placing an AT gun that is view able side on to the enemy - which is what your suggesting using 6m x 2m - your either in defilade or in the process of being flanked - which is a pretty ****ty position for an AT gun to be in - What Im getting at, is you need to assume the gun is face on to the enemy - not been approached from the flank - because why would you not have your main armament pointing at the enemy's direction in such a context???? Id argue the only reason is your been flanked.

Actually I have a Toyata Surf - its slightly greenish in color and probably not far off 2m x 2m if viewed from a frontal aspect. 

When I'm back in my home country Ill place it on the edge of a vegetated area (it will either be pine or native broad leaf "bush") and Ill take a photo from a 1km away. Ill hold a ruler up so you can see how long that wood line measures when seen from the observers point of view - this can then be scaled on your screen. I suspect you be surprised at how hard it would be to pick out this out.

then on Sailors behalf you can have a "Break".

I hope the grogs find this attempt for a real world exercise interesting - especially if we can convey the real world perception to the virtual.... Ill try and get as Hi Res as I can - looks like that's going to be 1/2 meg.

Sometimes I feel some on this forum get lost to much in the digital world and forget what the real world is actually like.

 

On 3/06/2016 at 10:09 AM, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think so. The gun itself just sits on the top of the ground and most of the crew don't enter the foxholes. To dig in AT guns, you need trenches. And yes, trenches are spotted at long distances, which is a whole different discussion, but did you test if the actual gun is also spotted, or just the trench tiles ?

My error - it was my initial assumption that the foxholes and trenches provide cover to the gun - but your correct - however the crew should still be considered in cover (ie they should be in the foxholes - which sometimes they seem to do and sometimes not. As you mentioned this is a slight distraction from the main issue - which is concealment.

I didnt test the trenches without the guns. I only reran the test with trenches because you guys had pointed out my error in assuming foxholes would provide "cover". I did not test exhaustively - but typically the trench was seen first then the gun after - so it seemed to me the observer is focused to the area by spotting the trench and then "seemed" to spot the gun quicker - but I didnt really track or analyze the results in detail- it answered my curiosity on what trenches did for concealment - not much they just give the game away quicker:) - even out to 1000m.

I didnt really push this because this is then getting into the other discussion you refer to - ie the concealment of field fortifications (trenches, foxholes, pill boxes) simulated in the game. I guess this depends on the assumptions made when modelling them ie is it a "hasty" defense or has their been enough time to fully camo, remove spoil etc.. I suspect its assumed a hastily dug trench.

This then would interact with your concealment bonuses for AT guns - ie if you assume a trench for an AT gun digs the gun into the ground then this will lower the aspect of the gun and if properly camo'd will make it harder to detect.

However I suspect it is not currently modeled for the concealment bonus of the AT gun to be combined with an additional bonus if placed on a Trench (ie to represent that gun being dug in) - I could see how this would be hard to model - hopefully one for future updates - but getting so Grogy - I guess the developers have to weight the benefit vs the cost???

You can only model so much and have to prioritize what you do model - like the whole tactical - movement of ammo load outs for AT guns - but well leave that to the other thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

4 hours ago, Gazmaps said:

I didnt test the trenches without the guns. I only reran the test with trenches because you guys had pointed out my error in assuming foxholes would provide "cover". I did not test exhaustively - but typically the trench was seen first then the gun after - so it seemed to me the observer is focused to the area by spotting the trench and then "seemed" to spot the gun quicker

I can't reproduce that. I just tested Flak 38s in trenches at 1060m. The gun and the trench were spotted at the same moment in 20 out of 20 instances.

[Sailor Malan2]

Thanks Gazmaps. There are several misconceptions of what camouflage is, here. If your camo is 'spottable' in its own right you have screwed up big time. The most likely realistic way this can happen is the use of cut branches/foliage  in hot weather that start dying in, say, heat, and don't  get replaced often enough. However I deliberately used experienced crew so as to initially avoid that issue for now.

Ideally we need a camo manual from WW2 of the techniques taught, and the testing used to show competence. If, (as I did in cadets when a teen) the exercise was to conceal myself less than 50m from a regular army instructor, with LoS to him, without being spotted, you have a hard data point. As an aside, in order to make sure we weren't cheating he used to call out the locations of everyone he could see anyway (the 'fails'), then he would make a gesture (right arm out for example), and then resume normal pose. He would then ask us left in to stand, and advance on him. You had to say what he had done to show you had LoS to him to pass. Its not as difficult as you think once you have learnt some basic techniques: place yourself in front of terrain/objects never against the sky), do not move, arrange yourself with a natural keyhole to the target(small gap in bush, or natural depression in whatever you are behind. I know I am not 2m square, but neither was i at 1000m! Once trained less than 25% would be spotted - the ones who weren't really interested in cadets (forced in by parents etc), , and that is with (unstressed) green/inexperienced troops. First try I think >2/3 failed straight away.

Assuming we don't have access to a convenient historical source like the above, we need some military guys to tell us what their experience is. Last resort we do experiments.  The car at 1000m is a good one (but for photos remember the effects of zoom lenses etc.) A further experiment that might be easier for urban dwellers is to remember you can do this at sub scale: 2m sq at 1000m is the same angle subtended as 20cm sq at 100m. Make some square 'targets' of 20x20cm, and paint them in different finishes. Place them in a hedge or tree line at 100m range, preferably one about 200m long, and ask a friend to spot it. With neutral colours, you can nail it to a tree (in shade but plain sight) and it will take many tens of seconds to spot. Put it in grass of behind a bush, paying attention to break up the outline and it gets even harder. Try it with silver foil and you will be surprised how you can miss those if you are clever at disguising it's outline (and it isn't reflecting straight at the viewer. Finally, remember that this test is pessimistic as the viewer knows the target is there somewhere...

Things that get spotted in those conditions are either things that move, or have failed to conceal a hard edge  (there are very few straight edges in nature, and eyes get drawn to them). Finally, shiny glints are a big giveaway.

I maintain that a properly concealed (= emplaced in CM) regular AT gun at 1000m should take well over a minute to detect, but then only a few seconds to identify as a Gun. Maybe spooting the exact type shouldn't happen at all until it fires, or only rarely. I would not like to propose numbers but my gut feel would be 5% chance to spot per  minute per spotter (infantry, with binos, and not under fire), which gives something like 2/3 spotted by a single spotter in 20 minutes. After that, identification as a gun should be 10 or 20 seconds, maybe 30 at the outside, if binos are used  (30 seconds focussed examination of a specific location is very different from a search of many degrees of arc). Without binos this could be 2 or 3 times longer. Finally there should be a 10% chance per minute of identifying it correctly once located. Firing the gun should pretty much get it spooted straight away by an unengaged infantry observer. These are all gut feel and I will immediately defer to anyone with proper knowledge.

[Anthony P.]

What sort of map are you using? Just a completely flat one, with only the mentioned trees and such? Because under those circumstances, I have tanks and such getting spotted even faster than your 88, at 2000m. Have you tried with any other unit than the FO, which is specialized in spotting? And maybe in circumstances where the spotting unit doesn't have to look exactly at the location of the 88 from start? Might I also suggest that you try this with tanks as well? I don't see much point in establishing only how long it takes for infantry to spot ATGs, especially not the Flak 88 that was the most notorious for its use in the desert as an ambush weapon against fast moving tanks without infantry.

When I introduced some actual concealment (remember what Patton told his tankers about fighting from woods), bocage this time, the 88 fired 4 shells. The FO didn't have a clue where what had fired from, and had 30 minutes of looking right at it without even suspecting it was there.

As for camouflage: If you truly want to break up the contours of an 88 with a 6m barrel and a +2x2m shield, you'll obviously need to use a lot of camo netting. Covering the barrel from start to end is superfluous, but you'll definitely have to make that netting stretch more than 3m sideways to break up the contours much. At 1000m, this is basically a very large tent. If you put something like that among trees, you'll stand out. Trees don't grow sideways. Your camo netting will.

I can make due without the photo unless you can guarantee the same resolution as the human eye 

[Sailor Malan2]

That sounds more like it. Maybe the 'range test' environment vs a real map is a key factor.

[Gazmaps]

7 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I can't reproduce that. I just tested Flak 38s in trenches at 1060m. The gun and the trench were spotted at the same moment in 20 out of 20 instances.

I just went back to rerun the tests - your correct - the 88 are spotted at the same time as the trench (at 1000m) - I was getting the Trenches spotted first with 75mm Pak 40 tests (at approx. 500m)- which I have in the same file for testing.

But this has also highlighted another issue. From my first lot of tests where I had a lot of mixed variables ( so not enough samples of testing a single variable) I wasn't picking up on another "oddity" but was highlighted when I reran to confirm Vanirs point above. I loaded a test just with 88s (at 1000) and just with 75 (at 500) and then noticed that the spotting was also variable because in some cases the spotters are not standing up!!!!

At least this is the only thing I can see that is causing the variations. Some guns are not spotted at all, or not for some minutes while others get spotted within the first minute. When I go and chk the spotters I see where guns have not been seen it is because none of the spotters are standing up. The FO squads that do spot have at least one guy kneeling.

So I think other than saying 88mm are spotted out to 1000m in fairly short order (if in wooded tiles with tree trunks) no other conclusions can really be drawn from any of the above tests.

Ill need to figure out how to get the spotters to standup / kneel - maybe change to fanatical or maybe put them behind a wall?

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

What sort of map are you using? Just a completely flat one, with only the mentioned trees and such? Because under those circumstances, I have tanks and such getting spotted even faster than your 88, at 2000m. Have you tried with any other unit than the FO, which is specialized in spotting? And maybe in circumstances where the spotting unit doesn't have to look exactly at the location of the 88 from start? Might I also suggest that you try this with tanks as well? I don't see much point in establishing only how long it takes for infantry to spot ATGs, especially not the Flak 88 that was the most notorious for its use in the desert as an ambush weapon against fast moving

I can make due without the photo unless you can guarantee the same resolution as the human eye 

edge of the wood-line.

I haven't tried with tanks as its generally not tanks spotting the AT gun that's the issue. The issue is Infantry observers from stand off rangers spotting your ambush positions well before the ambush can be sprung. I agree with what your saying that they where most devasting in the open desert - but my argument is they can (and historically where used in western Europe - and likely to good effect) to do this however they need to be concealable and Id argue despite their size at 1km they can be concealed - that is the crux of this discussion.

Ive used FO's as they have binos (and all the good opponents I play against will use bino quipped units as spotters) and I don't need to spilt squads etc. Its just a quick unit with 3 men to use for testing - its convenience mainly. I don't think different unit get bonuses based on unit type - I suspect it is the veterancy, leadership stats etc that will modify their ability. 

Well I ll see if I can get some good photos - but I think maintaining a working resolution might be an issue. Also position of sun, cloud cover light levels - will all make a massive difference as it would have in the real lift application of these scenarios. I think sailor has a good approach - Im just being to lazy to figure out the sizes / scale ratios for fixed sized items at varying distances.

 

[Anthony P.]

The rest of the map? Where do you place the 88? If you're going to insist on using huge weapons at such short range, it's vital that LoS can only be established from very limited positions.

And the edge of a tree line is hardly concealment. Something natural that actually conceals the shield. What made the 88 such a tank killer was the ability to employ it effectively from ranges where Shermans and other medium tanks couldn't return fire. A Sherman is definitely capable of lobbing HE shells accurately at 1000m.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Anthony P.