CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?

[Freyberg]

3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

Games and movies have spoiled us a lot nowadays. It's important to understand that in 1940 not all that many people on Earth had ever seen a car before much less an airplane or a bulldozer. 

So you're a lowly Private in a poor nation's Army on some god-forsaken flank, you're barely literate owing to the fact that a higher education was mostly beyond your family's agrarian background as local villagers and things like telephones and photographs are a real novelty when you happen to see them on rare visits into a town. 

In your foxhole one awful, unfortunate morning the enemy's fire is particularly heavy, there's way more smoke than usual but instead of the usual callouts and sporadic bursts of rifle fire a terrible noise starts to echo from somewhere behind the mist. A methodic, clacking noise of metal accompanied by deep, guttural rumbles that seem to rattle the entire countryside. The ground, literally, begins to shake as the silhouette of an enormous moving block of steel and fire emerges laying waste to all before it. Where ever it looks the same place suddenly disappears violently into a cloud of thunder, dirt, and intense heat. Men from positions in front of you are fleeing already, in vain as it mows them down with fire...or maybe even runs them over as if they were ants. It didn't take long at the front to learn about what this thing is, but nothing anyone told you about it could really prepare you for it because fact is, you've never seen anything like it. It's an actual monster of the Biblical kind and whether or not God or man made it doesn't matter much because it's the worst thing that's ever happened to you. You've got a rifle, maybe some grenades, and the uniform on your back. The officers already ran away....think you're really capable of earning that medal? 

I get your point and I think there's a lot of truth in what you say - particularly, as you note, in the early war setting or for green troops.

But even in the First World War, those attacked by tanks were not passive victims - many of them fought back, often very effectively. In the Second World War, soldiers soon realised that unsupported tanks were not invulnerable - and attempts to use them that way generally failed.

In CM, it's surprisingly hard to conduct a close assault on a tank - infantry need good cover for one thing, and the close-range spotting penalty given to tanks is not especially long. But if that Stug is bogged in a vineyard* with no infantry to protect it, it deserves to be a sitting duck...

(*or Brad Pitt's tank immobilised in the dark)

The human factor in such things must be extremely hard to model. I think CM has the balance about right.

 

 

[Erwin]

45 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

In CM, it's surprisingly hard to conduct a close assault on a tank

Unless it's been changed in a recent patch it's noticeable that a buttoned up tank will spot close-up inf very quickly even if in smoke and mow em down if they try to assault it.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

Unless it's been changed in a recent patch it's noticeable that a buttoned up tank will spot close-up inf very quickly even if in smoke and mow em down if they try to assault it.  

Which is, TBH, bloody ridiculous.

Nobody's asking for infantry to rush into the assault against every tank they spot, just that they should use the weapons they have to defend themselves, particularly when positioned in such an advantageous fashion.

 

[General Jack Ripper]

On 11/5/2019 at 5:58 AM, Kaunitz said:

Here are the points why I think tanks are overly strong in CM: 

• broken fortifications (in reality, there was not much a tank could do against infantry in a foxhole/trench, other than trying to "burry" it by spinning around over the foxhole or throwing grenades from hatches; in CM, you can just lob a few shells at the infantry, job done)

In reality, Dick Johnson huddled in his foxhole was protected from the evil Steel Elephants because he was huddled in his foxhole, and the enemy had no way of knowing Dick Johnson was in his foxhole. The enemy infantry closing in on his foxhole, on the other hand, are equipped with mortars, machineguns, and grenades which make Dick Johnson's life very short indeed. However, if Dick Johnson decides to poke his head and weapon out to fire upon these closing enemy infantry, then the evil Steel Elephants can spray him quite liberally with bullets and shells. This is why tanks and infantry are meant to work together, and in reality they did work together at every available opportunity.

However, in a combat mission quick battle, you're fighting against another player with the benefit of full knowledge that foxholes usually hold occupying troops. There is no practicable reason for the opposing player to NOT lob a few shells at every foxhole they see.

Now if you're sitting there thinking to yourself, "well foxholes should make infantry immune to direct cannon fire," then that is an entirely different thread we can have, and is in no way related to the use of tanks in quickbattles.

Even if foxholes made infantry immune to cannon fire, the tank can still spray bullets and shells at them until the attacking infantry get to hand grenade range.

 

Quote

• totally overpriced tank obstacles and AT mines, no AT ditches

AT ditches are far outside the general context of a quickbattle.

I suppose one player could edit the map and place some ditches that could serve the purpose, but that would be up to either side to negotiate. As far as the cost of such things is concerned, I have no real input. How long does it take to craft anti-tank obstacles? How long does it take to emplace antitank mines? Should the price for such things scale up or down depending on the number purchased to reflect the time commitment of emplacing said obstacles and mines? Is this quickbattle intended to simulate an attack against a very heavily fortified enemy position? If so, why not make it a scenario instead so you have more leeway?

Quickbattles are intended to be somewhat "evenly balanced". The use of anti-tank obstacles of massive size and scale is distinctly "unbalanced". I don't think many players are going to agree to attack the Siegfried Line in the course of a quickbattle.

 

Quote

• borg-spotting/area-fire which helps tanks a lot (the main weakness of tanks was their limited vision; this weakness is inexistent because players can let their tanks area fire at targets the crew has not spotted)

It's not borg-spotting. Just because Dick Johnson can see the opposing enemy infantry, doesn't mean Steel Elephant can.
What DOES happen, is the player in charge of Dick and Elephant can simply order Elephant to fire upon an area which Dick knows there are enemy present.

That depends entirely on the conduct of the player against which you are fighting. I generally do not use area fire against any spot that does not have a contact marker upon it, unless it's part of a pre-battle fire plan.

The TAC-AI is incapable of using area fire unless specifically programmed to do so by the scenario designer using an AI order and specifying a location to fire upon, so this point: "players can let their tanks area fire at targets the crew has not spotted" is entirely incorrect.

Tanks do not area fire unless the player tells them to.

 

Quote

• almost total lack of anti-tank close combat means (in most formations, AT grenades come in ridiculously low numbers; there are neither Molotov cocktails nor mines to be carried on the men - satchel charges are only available to dedicated engineer units).

If the evil Steel Elephants have closed to within 60 yards of your position, you probably shouldn't still be occupying that position.
If you HAVE to occupy that position, ordering your troops to 'Hide' and placing a very short 'Anti-Armor' cover arc will increase their survivability somewhat.
You might even kill a tank or two if they're being poorly handled.

Any infantry equipped with grenades can close assault an enemy tank, just like any infantry equipped with grenades can close assault a bunker.
The real question is, why is this necessary in the first place?
Just admit it's because you're desperate, all other options have been exhausted, and you might as well request a ceasefire because you're just wasting time until the inevitable.
If the enemy has more than one tank, then an infantry close assault is effectively suicide, because one tank can cover the other one with it's cannon and machineguns.

 

Quote

• lack of a "reinforcement" mechanic in quickbattles, so that a player can manoeuver freely with his tanks once he is certain that he has defeated the opponents (anti)tank assets. There is no risk of new, dangerous units showing up.

Sadly, Dick Johnson cannot persuade the 10th Panzer Division to retreat by waving his M1 Garand at them menacingly. If you've lost all your major anti-tank assets and the enemy still has tanks, you should just accept the fact your chances at victory are slim to none, and act accordingly. Sometimes a battle is impossible to win, but human beings are fallible, and can be encouraged to make a mistake.

An enemy who becomes over-confident can occasionally nearly lose his sole remaining armored unit to a PIAT gun firing from a church tower. <- Personal anecdote.

 

Quote

• Also, I'd sometimes wish that "underpowered" AT assets would actively attempt to stop "overarmored" tanks by actively targeting their tracks. I prefer an immobilised tank over a tank which has been hit by a deflecting shell (with a tiny or inexistent chance of penetration).

I agree. If the underpowered unit can spot and shoot first, then they might as well take the most effective shot they can. It would be nice to see more determined efforts by the TAC-AI to do this sort of thing, but I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how this is modeled.
If the overpowered unit shoots first, I'd rather the underpowered one focus exclusively on saving it's own skin. A weaker tank still alive is worth vastly more than a weaker tank who died gloriously for the Motherland.

Generally speaking, I think this point deserves it's own thread and doesn't reflect on the overall combat power of tanks at all.
A 20mm armed Pz-II is not going to kill a Sherman, no matter how hard it tries. If you are in a situation where you have Stuarts versus Pz-IV, you should curse your own poor force purchasing skills, not the lack of effectiveness of your main armament. OR: You could no doubt use your superior numbers to bait that Pz-IV into exposing it's weaker side armor to a flank shot.

 

Quote

When I was thinking about house rules for quickbattle-setups, I also noticed how many advantages the CM engine seems to give to tanks in the WWII setting, particularly in quickbattles. 

In a quickbattle the makeup of your force is based on your own decisions, and the actions and effectiveness of your force are based on relative player skill and the aforementioned agreed-upon house rules.

I haven't seen anything in your bullet pointed list that is directly related to the game engine itself in terms of the effectiveness of tanks in quickbattles by themselves.

[DougPhresh]

52 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Just admit it's because you're desperate, all other options have been exhausted, and you might as well request a ceasefire because you're just wasting time until the inevitable.

If the enemy has more than one tank, then an infantry close assault is effectively suicide, because one tank can cover the other one with it's cannon and machineguns.

 

Sadly, Dick Johnson cannot persuade the 10th Panzer Division to retreat by waving his M1 Garand at them menacingly. If you've lost all your major anti-tank assets and the enemy still has tanks, you should just accept the fact your chances at victory are slim to none, and act accordingly. Sometimes a battle is impossible to win, but human beings are fallible, and can be encouraged to make a mistake.

Soviet infantry killed panzers at close range all of the way from Moscow to Berlin. Clearly their tactics worked because 45mm AT guns, AT Rifles and AT Grenades were not discarded along the way. German counterattacks, including those of heavy panzer battalions were turned away by soviet infantry, with their organic weapons in their trenches or built up areas. This needs to be reflected in Red Thunder, else as you said, as soon as your opponent fields a tiger or tiger ii you may as well call for a ceasefire.

[MikeyD]

'Attempt to shoot the tracks' is like telling police to shoot an attacking assailant in the leg. Cops are taught to aim for the center of mass for the simple reason that handguns are notoriously inaccurate at anything beyond point blank range and you're likely to not hit anything at all. In the game we see bazooka rounds impact the ground in front of the tank and panzerfaust rounds soar over the top of the vehicle. If hitting the vehicle at all is problematic then demanding the pixeltruppen go for a trick shot against the left rear drive sprocket is an unreasonable expectation. Such advice is usually included in manuals for the morale of the troops. Telling them to aim for the tracks is better than telling them to despair and surrender. Still, in the games I've been playing recently I've suffered a fair number 'immobilized ' hits on my attacking armor. You can't say it doesn't happen, though there's no dedicated animations of specific 'heroic' acts.

 

[Erwin]

4 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

demanding the pixeltruppen go for a trick shot against the left rear drive sprocket is an unreasonable expectation. Such advice is usually included in manuals for the morale of the troops.

makes sense.  But, someone made a good post that with mass ("obsolete") ATR fire, tanks vision blocks etc would get smashed leaving the tank essentially blind.  So, one or two ATR teams, which is usually all one gets in a CM2 scenario is suicidal, but 10+?   

Perhaps the small-ish size of the average CM2 scenario is giving an inaccurate depiction of RL effects.

[SimpleSimon]

18 hours ago, Freyberg said:

I get your point and I think there's a lot of truth in what you say - particularly, as you note, in the early war setting or for green troops.

But even in the First World War, those attacked by tanks were not passive victims - many of them fought back, often very effectively. In the Second World War, soldiers soon realised that unsupported tanks were not invulnerable - and attempts to use them that way generally failed.

And like, don't get me wrong Freyberg, there's a lot of validity to your point and this view that it wasn't clear cut. I'm intentionally being dramatic to illustrate a point and kind of get across a certain "zeitgeist" about the era that's been lost to time I think. The Germans particularly lamented that as the war went on the Panzer Divisions seemed to have lost their ability to inflict "tank terror" on formations of troops better led and less shocked by the appearance of armour. So while enough tanks might still penetrate the line it was no longer guaranteed that the entire front might collapse in a single decisive blow as it had in 1940 or 1941. Men triumphed over machine on a number of occasions before, during, and after World War 2.

I just think that people don't realize when they're applying reasoning and thinking that has been taught to them by generations of games, movies, media, etc much of which is actually just self-referential (or mindless repetition of propaganda) and not really grounded in any kind of fact or truth. Here it's the idea, frequently implied by fiction and wielded by the propaganda of reckless, irresponsible leaders that bravery and persistence will always triumph over the superior numbers and weapons of the enemy. It bugs me enough for me to take my own stance on it, but it is not meant to invalidate yours since I also believe there's plenty of space for subjectivity on all this...

 

[A Canadian Cat]

On 1/11/2020 at 11:20 PM, Freyberg said:

In CM, it's surprisingly hard to conduct a close assault on a tank - infantry need good cover for one thing, and the close-range spotting penalty given to tanks is not especially long. But if that Stug is bogged in a vineyard* with no infantry to protect it, it deserves to be a sitting duck...

(*or Brad Pitt's tank immobilised in the dark)

The human factor in such things must be extremely hard to model. I think CM has the balance about right.

I agree.

We also have to remember that CM has to balance a lot of things and sometimes the balance is more important than accuracy. While it is challenging to close assault a tank in CM as @Freyberg says it is likely easier than in real life as @SimpleSimon points out. However don't forget in real life, tank commanders would not just run around the streets or through the woods on their own with no support. But we players sure would if we could get away with it. Making close assaulting tanks a little easier in CM makes our use of tanks in tight spaces more realistic and the balance ends up pretty good. IMHO.

[General Jack Ripper]

On 1/12/2020 at 1:34 PM, DougPhresh said:

Soviet infantry killed panzers at close range all of the way from Moscow to Berlin. Clearly their tactics worked because 45mm AT guns, AT Rifles and AT Grenades were not discarded along the way. German counterattacks, including those of heavy panzer battalions were turned away by soviet infantry, with their organic weapons in their trenches or built up areas. This needs to be reflected in Red Thunder, else as you said, as soon as your opponent fields a tiger or tiger ii you may as well call for a ceasefire.

45mm AT guns, and AT Rifles are not hand grenades, nor are they "close range" weapons.
The complaint being addressed is Infantry close assaulting tanks within hand grenade or bazooka range, or the lack of ability thereof.

If the enemy rolls up with a Tiger tank accompanied by infantry, and all you have to fight it is a grenade bundle or a bazooka, you might as well ceasefire.

 

Quote

If you've lost all your major anti-tank assets and the enemy still has tanks, you should just accept the fact your chances at victory are slim to none, and act accordingly.

Maybe if you read my entire post you wouldn't have missed my clarifying statement.

[General Jack Ripper]

On 1/12/2020 at 1:52 PM, Erwin said:

Perhaps the small-ish size of the average CM2 scenario is giving an inaccurate depiction of RL effects.

Most likely what we lose in translation is the day-to-day attrition suffered by the pixeltruppen when they're NOT engaging in the 45 minute scenario being played.

When the scenario briefing specifies you have the support of a tank platoon, but when you load the scenario you only have three tanks on the field, one can safely assume the 4th tank got it's main gun sight shot out and is having it replaced, or some other such attrition.

[SimpleSimon]

In general I tend to feel most of the scenarios are way too optimistic about unit strengths on both sides, more so Axis than Allies. 

[SimpleSimon]

Ah geez here I go again. 

Infantry anti-tank weapons are overrated if you ask me... Officers were desperate to find silver linings to keep the men's spirits up. Behind the curtains at GHQ though it was well known that anti-tank gun crews had high fatality rates and many infantry anti-tank weapons were placebos, if they weren't more dangerous to the man using them than the tank they're being used on. (the No.74 sticky bomb) Assuming you have any of these things around that is and in fact abandonment was the most frequent fate of many of the war's anti tank weapons owing to their weight and their highly questionable usefulness among skittish, superstitious infantry who would usually much prefer to hide from enemy tanks than try to draw attention from them. Claiming that "none of them were found discarded" is not encouraging because that probably means few were being issued...

British Officers discovered an epidemic of abandoned Boys Rifles in the western desert because the infantry hated the weapon's weight and felt the only thing it was good for was getting its operator killed. Meanwhile in Russia, the PTRD was actually quite well liked...but none were around until November 1941 and its issuance was still a rarity until 1943 by which point many German tanks were not vulnerable to it anymore. For a time the Russians attempted to construct huge formations of just anti-tank guns, literally a Brigade of them...fully motorized too! In practice these Brigades suffered a lot during Barbarossa. German recon would spot them and then direct the Panzers behind them elsewhere and they had lots of experience doing this in 1940 when the French tried to construct anti-tank heavy formations based on the quadrillage system that did nothing to avert history as we know it...

Usually to prevent disaster many Armies would press their artillery into anti-tank, course on a number of occasions the infantry had already been overrun and the crews were down to defending themselves. Trouble was that Divisions cannot really afford to have their chief source of firepower set aside for use as anti-tank guns...the guns are too damn valuable and achieve more doing their job than having to ward off every Panzer III that gets too close to Regimental HQ. 

The Americans found the Pak40 so shockingly effective that they actually started to believe anti-tank guns were more effective than tank-destroyers, and began partially de-mechanizing anti-tank units. (American commanders remained oblivious until 1945 as to why charging pairs of tanks or platoons of them up obvious, exposed highways may have been a bad idea.) This attitude contributed directly to a number of units being overrun during the Battle of the Bulge who had swapped their M10s for the 3in M5 anti-tank gun, many of which were lost once they were overrun or...depopulated by heavy artillery fire as everyone found out in 1941...The Americans didn't understand that the Germans used any towed anti-tank guns at all as a matter of necessity, not choice. It was very much preferable to strap the Pak40 to anything that was big enough to move it, hence the Marder series of badly imbalanced gun-carriers. The gun's prime mover was likely to be lost or run out of gas at some point and if you couldn't move the gun annihilation by bombardment (or irrelevance by outflanking) was inevitable...so most crews ran for it after a few minutes. Can you blame them? 

Once you got up to utter insanity like the Pak 43...an anti-tank gun which weighed more than many armored vehicles...it was apparently time to just admit that you were better off building a tank, even a bad tank is better than none at all. 

 

[Warts 'n' all]

An interesting lecture on the development of AT guns during WW2. Although what sticky bombs and Boys have to do with tanks in CMx2 I'm not sure. Perhaps you were trying to sneak in a plug for an early war game craftily.

Don't worry pass one of these across Steve's palm and you might get your wish.... 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Warts 'n' all

[Pelican Pal]

On 1/12/2020 at 11:35 AM, General Jack Ripper said:

Now if you're sitting there thinking to yourself, "well foxholes should make infantry immune to direct cannon fire," then that is an entirely different thread we can have, and is in no way related to the use of tanks in quickbattles.

 

CM's fortification weakness is tied in quite closely to the effectiveness of any sort of high firepower asset. Be that artillery, machinegunes, or tanks. The inherent weakness of fortifications remove some of the key counters infantry have.

On 1/12/2020 at 11:35 AM, General Jack Ripper said:

It's not borg-spotting. Just because Dick Johnson can see the opposing enemy infantry, doesn't mean Steel Elephant can.

There has been a lengthy discussion on player borg spotting and borg control earlier in the thread.
 

On 1/12/2020 at 12:44 PM, MikeyD said:

'Attempt to shoot the tracks' is like telling police to shoot an attacking assailant in the leg.

With relatively high-velocity guns and relatively large targets (e.g. the tracks of an armored vehicle) it would be reasonably possible to land hits on exposed parts of a vehicle. It would be infinitely smarter than firing center mass with a underpowered weapon.

Panzerfausts, Schrecks, Piats, all are relatively low velocity weapons firing at an arc. These will obviously be much worse at hitting targets.

[Vinnart]

No, they seem fine to me.

[General Jack Ripper]

23 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

CM's fortification weakness is tied in quite closely to the effectiveness of any sort of high firepower asset. Be that artillery, machineguns, or tanks. The inherent weakness of fortifications remove some of the key counters infantry have.

So I take it you're one of the people in the "foxholes should make infantry immune to cannon fire" camp.

Feel free to start a thread and hash out the issue, but cherry-picking my statements won't help you. Here's the missing context you decided to leave out:

On 1/12/2020 at 12:35 PM, General Jack Ripper said:

Even if foxholes made infantry immune to cannon fire, the tank can still spray bullets and shells at them until the attacking infantry get to hand grenade range.

Moot point.

 

23 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

There has been a lengthy discussion on player borg spotting and borg control earlier in the thread.

It's still not borg spotting though. It's all down to the player. CMx1 had borg spotting, where if even one unit could see the enemy, then all units magically became aware of their position, and all units with LOS and LOF could engage said unit with zero delay. That's what borg-spotting is.

Players using gamey tactics that infuriate other players is not a bug, it's a feature, and has no bearing on the relative strength or weakness of tanks.

[General Jack Ripper]

18 hours ago, Vinnart said:

No, they seem fine to me.

Maybe I should have just said that.

[Pelican Pal]

On 1/18/2020 at 4:03 PM, General Jack Ripper said:

It's still not borg spotting though. It's all down to the player. CMx1 had borg spotting, where if even one unit could see the enemy, then all units magically became aware of their position, and all units with LOS and LOF could engage said unit with zero delay. That's what borg-spotting is.

 

In the original OP Kaunitz specifically identified player driven borg spotting.

 

On 1/18/2020 at 4:03 PM, General Jack Ripper said:

So I take it you're one of the people in the "foxholes should make infantry immune to cannon fire" camp.

 

Not all entrenchments, but the overall lack of good fortification representation severely degrades infantry survivabillity. Allowing armor heavy formations to push entrenched infantry around. This reduces the complexity for the attacker and reduces the defenders capability to take advantage of the complexity.

 

On 1/18/2020 at 4:03 PM, General Jack Ripper said:

On 1/12/2020 at 11:35 AM, General Jack Ripper said:

Even if foxholes made infantry immune to cannon fire, the tank can still spray bullets and shells at them until the attacking infantry get to hand grenade range.

Moot point.

Overcoming tactical challenges with the tools at hand is the bread and butter of the CM series. 

Play and counter-play. 

- I place infantry in entrenchments

* You suppress with armor

* You advance with infantry to root them out

- I engage your infantry from a supporting position

etc...

Your "moot point" argument is antithetical to the existence of CM.

[BornGinger]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 5:07 AM, Erwin said:

Unless it's been changed in a recent patch it's noticeable that a buttoned up tank will spot close-up inf very quickly

I had this situation in a H2H game which surprised me. A team of two men were sneaking up (slow movement mode) to a Sherman from behind it. The tank leader wasn't sitting with the turret hatch open so I thought I should manage to knock it out. When they were close enough to shoot off their panzerfaust the turret turned almost 180 degrees and shot off a shell. I decided that maybe that tank had eyes in the neck and accepted that wonder of action from the tank.

Edited January 30, 2020 by BornGinger

[MOS:96B2P]

9 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

I had this situation in a H2H game which surprised me. A team of two men were sneaking up (slow movement mode) to a Sherman from behind it. The tank leader wasn't sitting with the turret hatch open so I thought I should manage to knock it out. When they were close enough to shoot off their panzerfaust the turret turned almost 180 degrees and shot off a shell. I decided that maybe that tank had eyes in the neck and accepted that wonder of action from the tank.

If it was a H2H game it was probably the opposing player and not the Tac AI that had the Sherman fire at your team.  The other player probably had at least tentative contact on your team and ordered his tank to area fire.  He may also have had a confirmed contact from some other unit of his that spotted your sneaking team.  

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, BornGinger said:

On 1/12/2020 at 6:07 AM, Erwin said:

Unless it's been changed in a recent patch it's noticeable that a buttoned up tank will spot close-up inf very quickly

I had this situation in a H2H game which surprised me. A team of two men were sneaking up (slow movement mode) to a Sherman from behind it. The tank leader wasn't sitting with the turret hatch open so I thought I should manage to knock it out. When they were close enough to shoot off their panzerfaust the turret turned almost 180 degrees and shot off a shell. I decided that maybe that tank had eyes in the neck and accepted that wonder of action from the tank.

 

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

If it was a H2H game it was probably the opposing player and not the Tac AI that had the Sherman fire at your team.  The other player probably had at least tentative contact on your team and ordered his tank to area fire.  He may also have had a confirmed contact from some other unit of his that spotted your sneaking team.  

I think Erwin is right though. I've seen it happen many times in singleplayer mode that tanks spot infantry sneaking up on them through forest. Tank spotting is heavily affected by two things: distance and whether it has a cupola.

At 20m distance the tank will spot infantry quite quickly, even if they are inside buildings or in forest terrain. It doesnt't happen immediately, but since infantry takes so long to crawl anywhere, there's a lot of time for the tank to do its spotting checks.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

If it was a H2H game it was probably the opposing player and not the Tac AI that had the Sherman fire at your team.  The other player probably had at least tentative contact on your team and ordered his tank to area fire.  He may also have had a confirmed contact from some other unit of his that spotted your sneaking team.  

I have experienced several incidents vs the AI where a tank was smothered with smoke, so very poor visibility.  But, the instant the inf was close enuff to see the tank, it reacted very quickly and killed the inf.  It's probably some form of game AI balancing to ensure tanks are not too vulnerable to inf assault.  

[MOS:96B2P]

13 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I have experienced several incidents vs the AI where a tank was smothered with smoke, so very poor visibility.  But, the instant the inf was close enuff to see the tank, it reacted very quickly and killed the inf.  

In WW2 titles or modern titles? 

In modern titles with thermals etc. I could see this happening.  I would not expect to see it very often in the WW2 titles.  Unless of course you are playing against a human.  My understanding is the Tac AI does not fire on tentative contacts.  Only confirmed.  So in a modern title it is possible that a TC with modern equipment has a confirmed contact on an infantry team in smoke etc.  It is much less likely for a buttoned WW2 TC to get a confirmed contact.  Maybe a tentative but the AI won't (as far as I understand) fire at a tentative contact. 

And there is the other issue where smoke is now more difficult to area fire through.  If smoke/dust floats across the gunners sights they cease fire.  So for a buttoned  WW2 (so no IR) Tac AI to get a confirmed spot on troops in smoke and quickly fire on them would, I think, be unusual.     

[MOS:96B2P]

39 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

At 20m distance the tank will spot infantry quite quickly, even if they are inside buildings or in forest terrain. It doesnt't happen immediately, but since infantry takes so long to crawl anywhere, there's a lot of time for the tank to do its spotting checks.

I can understand this in modern titles.  I have seen it myself.  But not so much in WW2 titles for the reasons I listed in Erwin's post.