CMSF2 CR´s Experiments and Tests Videos

[tpr]

I´m collecting all experiments videos into this thread. You´re welcome to discuss the weapon performances and observations here but do it in a respecting and adult way.

 

[tpr]

Even though the model (still) shows laser warning stickers indicating a Pzfst3-IT-600 with fire control and 600m range you can tell by the ingame name and performance that it represents a Pzfst3-IT with conventional optical sights and a range of 400m but tests show that there is almost nothing to win beyond 200m especially because it is a disposable thus can´t be reloaded and German AT teams just carry one by default.

 

 

[tpr]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeyD]

That first video was hilarious. It reminded me of similar tests done using the king tiger 88 back-in-the-day.

[tpr]

16 hours ago, MikeyD said:

That first video was hilarious. It reminded me of similar tests done using the king tiger 88 back-in-the-day.

Yes it was very fascinating. It also raised some questions:

Notice when issuing a manual target command that the Abrams fires an HEAT round as first shot which is not really suited for this test. However from the AI´s standpoint it is an understandable one. While an HEAT doesn´t come with the velocity, range, and penetration power of kinetic energy based ammunitions, the explosives capabilites of HEAT make it indeed a good standard choice for closer range light protected (and possibly crowded) APC targets.

However when not being opressed by manual target command thus leaving the AI free hand you can see the Abrams is taking the second shot with its kinetic based APFDS as I wanted to see for this test and as it is the best case - human and AI alike - could do in this scenario. Either we had luck, or the AI was targeting the BMP behind it fully aware that it requires APFDS to get trough the first wreck, or it realized "look these APC´s lined up perfectly lets use APFDS", or an to me unknown aspect.

In the following Stryker test the M1 also responds with APFDS when being issued an Armor Arc command instead of a Manual Target command which just dictates the direction and max range for handling armor but leaves the rest still to by decided by the AI (what weapon, which ammo, effective ranges etc.).

One would predict the M1´s AI keeping using HEAT in a vs. stationary APC at close range situation as you wouldn´t expect the AI having awareness of exotic situations like in this experiment. But it overperformed and did as it was best in this situation. Two times having luck? I don´t think so but I am puzzled and would like to understand how this worked under the hood. Definitely impressed that this worked so well.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Captain Reyes

[db_zero]

In 1 of my h2h games and in the first mission of the Task Force Thunder I’ve seen tanks get double kills with 1 shot in  1 case it was a BMP that was hit first, the sabot went through it and then hit and killed a T90.

In the second case 2 T55s were killed by 1 shot.

Interesting to see that when manually targeting you get that result in test cases.

I would think that in general sabot rounds are generally just loaded unless specificity specified as there are generally more of them onboard and you assume you may encounter an enemy tank in which case sabot rounds are best and if not it works against lighter stuff like APCs?

Regardless my understanding from playing Steel Beasts is once main gun is loaded with a specific type of round it always gets shot regardless of target so if a sabot round is in the breech and you see a target that is not the ideal target for that round you fire the main gun at the target anyway with what’s loaded.

If that is the case then it would be interesting as I don’t think I’ve ever seen a sabot being shot at infantry in the game from the main gun on MBTs. If the infantry is in a building I would think a sabot round hitting the building could be effective depending on the material and construction of the building. If it’s a thick concrete building with rebar you may indeed want to use 1 or 2 sabots on it.

I may be misinformed and it may be procedure to unload a round that is not appropriate for a particular target and then reload with appropriate ammunition in practice. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by db_zero

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, db_zero said:

In 1 of my h2h games and in the first mission of the Task Force Thunder I’ve seen tanks get double kills with 1 shot in  1 case it was a BMP that was hit first, the sabot went through it and then hit and killed a T90.

In the second case 2 T55s were killed by 1 shot.

Interesting to see that when manually targeting you get that result in test cases.

I would think that in general sabot rounds are generally just loaded unless specificity specified as there are generally more of them onboard and you assume you may encounter an enemy tank in which case sabot rounds are best and if not it works against lighter stuff like APCs?

Regardless my understanding from playing Steel Beasts is once main gun is loaded with a specific type of round it always gets shot regardless of target so if a sabot round is in the breech and you see a target that is not the ideal target for that round you fire the main gun at the target anyway with what’s loaded.

If that is the case then it would be interesting as I don’t think I’ve ever seen a sabot being shot at infantry in the game from the main gun on MBTs. If the infantry is in a building I would think a sabot round hitting the building could be effective depending on the material and construction of the building. If it’s a thick concrete building with rebar you may indeed want to use 1 or 2 sabots on it.

I may be misinformed and it may be procedure to unload a round that is not appropriate for a particular target and then reload with appropriate ammunition in practice. 

AFAIK, you're not misinformed. I guess the rationale has two factors involved, (1) It is quicker to fire the loaded round and follow with the most appropriate ammunition nature. (2) If you hit the target with the less than appropriate loaded round, you will still have at the bare minimum, a shock effect on the target giving you time to get the next round loaded and downrange.

[tpr]

You usually don´t unload the ordnance. The first choice for unknown situations is definitely - like you mentioned - kinetic energy based sabot ordnance as this is able to persecute most targets that could become an imminent threat to you at all ranges, being stationary or mobile in other words tanks and the complete repetoire of lighter armored vehicles. While Sabot facing APC´s may not come with the same anti-personell advantages of HEAT, Sabot and its sheer kinetic energy still has a considerable effect on the light armored vehicle and its crew. HEAT is also liked to be used as a finisher for struck armored vehicles.

I am still interested in finding out what made the AI to go for the decisions in video 1st post.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Captain Reyes

[A Canadian Cat]

9 hours ago, db_zero said:

Regardless my understanding from playing Steel Beasts is once main gun is loaded with a specific type of round it always gets shot regardless of target so if a sabot round is in the breech and you see a target that is not the ideal target for that round you fire the main gun at the target anyway with what’s loaded.

My understanding is that this is how things are IRL.

Quote

If that is the case then it would be interesting as I don’t think I’ve ever seen a sabot being shot at infantry in the game from the main gun on MBTs.

However the game does not do this - to avoid the inevitable "why was the tank running around with a clearly wrong munition in the breach, surely the TC should have know X" posts. The game behaves as if the round in the gun is the one the TC wants. Which is why you have not seen the above scenario. Call it Schrödinger's ammo.

Edited December 17, 2018 by IanL
typeo

[Bud Backer]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

Call it Schrödinger's ammo.

Bleeding brilliant!

[tpr]

 

[tpr]

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Now you know why I love Shock Force & Uncons so much. 

PS - Some of those chain demolitions are priceless!  I thought something like that could happen (having witnessed vaguely similar while testing Mosul stuff), but I'd say it's pretty much beyond doubt now. 

Edited December 18, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[tpr]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Now you know why I love Shock Force & Uncons so much. 

PS - Some of those chain demolitions are priceless!  I thought something like that could happen (having witnessed vaguely similar while testing Mosul stuff), but I'd say it's pretty much beyond doubt now. 

Imagine playing casually a scenario, making the wrong move with a unit and suddenly being jump-scared by such an explosion . 

The serious utility of this experiments is limited of course but still had a great time and nice to see how many options Shock Force 2 provides you with. The UNCON aspect makes CMSF very special not just among the CM family.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

CM:A has most of the same options, and much better organised Uncons (Not to mention a game calendar spanning 14 years!  ).....But I digress. 

[tpr]

 

 

[tpr]

12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

CM:A has most of the same options, and much better organised Uncons (Not to mention a game calendar spanning 14 years!  ).....But I digress. 

For me CM:A is an underrated title. Sure some of the variables and representations can´t keep up with 4.0 level but I still had a really great time with the Complete Incompetence custom campaign I did some weeks back then. The mountain mission also ended in one of the best looking CM experiences I´ve had, somehow all variables (game, reshade) resulted in perfection by accident. Still have the late war official Campaign and the UNCON custom campaign on the list.

[DerKommissar]

Can only hope they'll bring back CMA eventually.

Thanks for compiling all your experiments!

[MikeyD]

For general reference, that blood red Lada IED vehicle is the original factory color.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Rubbish, the originals were blue! 

[sburke]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Rubbish, the originals were blue! 

The owners certainly were.

[MikeyD]

I'm bumping this. I'm surprised this thread managed to drift down to the third page.