Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Attilaforfun said:

a) the guns of the tanks are covering at least a 270 degree field

Not unless you set target arcs...

2 minutes ago, Attilaforfun said:

tank turrets are constantly moving searching for targets within their assigned sectors. 

Ah... You are presumably talking RL... not the game.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well considering every military in history has trained to aim for center of mass, this seems like the nitpick of all nitpicks. If anything, its an indication the game is behaving correctly. Abs

You'll have to excuse the double post here, but I feel compelled to share this. I think some of the misconception about what is happening in the game is coming from the fact that the TacAI always

Tank gunners aim center mass because that is the only practical option. Aiming for specific parts of the tank is some gamey **** straight out of some arcade tank "sim" game like War Thunder, where

Posted Images

I've played various sims and more arcade style games and at longer ranges something I've noticed is that when engaging hull-down vehicles (or even infantry in cover) its often difficult to actual tell the shape of the target. However, when watching the hull-down clips here its clear the vehicles know the exact shape of the enemy.

I wonder if that might not add to the accuracy we are seeing. Since spotting then gives the crew perfect knowledge of the size/shape of the enemy. Whereas in reality they may be aiming at a muzzle flash or an unclear shape. Possibly putting rounds into the vehicles cover under a mistaken belief that it is part of the vehicle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've reread the post a few times and collected some thoughts.


1. The gunner's sights are likely too accurate at range

At the longer ranges (depending on the sight) you would not be able to accurately place the gun onto the center mass of the target. Just based on the inability for the gunner to accurately use his sight picture to do so. Meaning that even if a target is spotted at an extreme range the ability to accurately fire would be impossible.

This would be similar to shooting with a rifle. Your rifle is going to be physically more accurate for a much longer range than the shooter is capable of seeing/accurately lining up the sights.

2. The gunner likely has too much knowledge of the target

The gunner continually hits the center of mass when in reality they may not know where the center of mass is or even mistakenly identify the center of mass. For example, a Tiger is situated in heavy woods and is spotted by an opposing vehicle. The shooter may see a portion of the Tiger but they may not know what portion of the vehicle they are seeing. Resulting in them firing repeatedly into a random portion of the Tiger or totally missing if they incorrectly identify the orientation of the vehicle.

3. The gun should likely become increasingly inaccurate as the gunner continues to shoot.

I may be wrong here but while the gun, if perfectly stable, should have perfect accuracy based on its qualities, the qualities of the ammunition, and the qualities of the environment this should not be the case in the field. As the vehicle or gun would move around due to the recoil forces of firing repeatedly on often uneven ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Tiger I at Bovington  was captured after a glancing blow disabled the gun. I recall someone once posted a British AAR field report from a tank company(?) that had a surprising number of tanks coming in for repair of disabled guns afterwards.

Here's an interesting quote from the book "Commanding The Red Army's Sherman Tanks"

Quote

 ...A main gun shot from the Emcha tore through the air. Identified by its tracer, the round, slamming against the turret mantle, had gone right and up. Another shot. This one struck home! Like a sawed log, almost half of the Tiger's gun tube flew off to the side. The cupola hatch immediately opened with a clank—the enemy tank commander raised himself out almost to the waist. Anatoliy saw in his gunsight how even the German's mouth fell open in surprise at the sight of the remaining stub of his long gun [main gun tube].

 

 

XZGcxxG.jpg

tiger at bovington copy2.jpg

Edited by MikeyD
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tigers were relatively rare beasts but we've got three different examples of a gun kill from a 5 minute search on the internet. The Bovington vehicle, the 'Emcha' (Sherman) gun tube hit, and the photo above of the half-severed gun tube. I recall an Israeli photo from the early 80s of a 105mm APDS round having struck a T62 gun barrel at an extremely shallow angle but still penetrating to the barrel interior. Pershing had hardly seen any action in WWII but still one was done-in by a hit to the muzzle brake,

 

4jlYYTC.jpg

LgC2Vs1.jpg

02569.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Well of course it was so rare and amazing that people took pics and here are 3... not hundreds.  Look at the troops' faces.  It was like winning the lottery is all am saying.

It was better than winning the lottery - their gun got KO'ed instead of their vehicle. I too would be smiling and jumping for joy in their position.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Erwin said:

In CM2 it's quite normal.

... if you play as the Germans! Don't think I've ever had an Allied tank with a destroyed main gun.

Obviously this has a lot to do with German anti-tank weapons slicing through Allied armour like a knife through hot butter but acknowledging your tanks are fragile makes you play them better.

On the other hand, the mythic allure of superior German armour might encourage people to play more aggressively and recieve a face full of subverted expectations when they inevitably get damaged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2020 at 11:37 AM, com-intern said:

 

3. The gun should likely become increasingly inaccurate as the gunner continues to shoot.

I may be wrong here but while the gun, if perfectly stable, should have perfect accuracy based on its qualities, the qualities of the ammunition, and the qualities of the environment this should not be the case in the field. As the vehicle or gun would move around due to the recoil forces of firing repeatedly on often uneven ground.

I don't understand this. A target is reacquired for each shot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

I don't understand this. A target is reacquired for each shot. 

It looks like after the initial ranging shots the gun essentially is only ever off by its own inherent accuracy. As the gun fires and the gunner corrects you should likely see some amount of drift on the point of aim. Especially at long ranges. Since you are now dealing the the gun's recoil, any vehicle recoil/settling, and possibly the gunner moving the point of aim to reacquire the target.

Now like I said this is the one I'm most unsure about, but the current results feel a little bit too robotic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Short summary of this thread:

  1. Tank gunners are too accurate because they are able to line up the sight on the exact centre of mass of their target every time.
     
  2. The aim doesn't get thrown off with each shot, leading to sustained perfect accuracy.
     
  3. Tanks in hulldown spot enemies much worse, because their hull crew members can't see.
     
  4. Tanks in hulldown don't get any bonus to avoid getting spotted.
     
  5. Tank guns get knocked out from impacts from extreme shallow angles, where in reality the shell would slide off and hit the mantlet.
     
  6. The mantlet is way too vulnerable on many tanks.
     

In short, these factors combine to making hulldown a losing tactic for many AFVs in this game, whereas in reality it was part of doctrine, especially for StuGs etc.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Just out of curiosity. When spotting in the game, does size matter? I.e. is a Ferdinand easier to spot than a Stuart? I would heavily reduce the spotting capacity of crewmen without proper optics when buttoned. 

 

I think you are right regarding the accuracy and aiming. Personally I would throw a randomness to the aiming. I.e let it deviate xx seconds from the aimpoint, so that at very long range the dispersion would naturally become higher, and hull down positions would be interesting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kch001 said:

When spotting in the game, does size matter? I.e. is a Ferdinand easier to spot than a Stuart?

I don't know for sure. But anecdotally, I have never noticed very small vehicles such as jeeps being more difficult to spot than large tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 9:17 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Short summary of this thread:

  1. Tank gunners are too accurate because they are able to line up the sight on the exact centre of mass of their target every time.
     
  2. The aim doesn't get thrown off with each shot, leading to sustained perfect accuracy.
     
  3. Tanks in hulldown spot enemies much worse, because their hull crew members can't see.
     
  4. Tanks in hulldown don't get any bonus to avoid getting spotted.
     
  5. Tank guns get knocked out from impacts from extreme shallow angles, where in reality the shell would slide off and hit the mantlet.
     
  6. The mantlet is way too vulnerable on many tanks.
  1. Well considering every military in history has trained to aim for center of mass, this seems like the nitpick of all nitpicks. If anything, its an indication the game is behaving correctly.
  2. Absurd. Aim does not get magically thrown off target just by firing. This is why recoil mechanisms exist. And if we are going to nitpick and say "the ground is shifting" well as it turns out militaries are actually competent and train for this eventuality. Weapons crews, gun crews, tank crews, etc all take this into account and make micro adjustments while firing to ensure they are compensating for these small variables. Though I know some here will refuse to accept it, I think it is clear that the game accurately models a crews overall competence depending on its veterancy level, and that is more than enough to cover this "issue."
  3. Yes, and the sky is blue. Seriously, what is the point? This is known in the real world, yet there is not a single military out there that advocates for fighting tanks out in the open opposed to hull down positions. Again, it turns out that militaries are pretty competent when it comes to this stuff. Yeah, the driver can't see anything in a hull down position. That's why the job of spotting targets is the commander and gunners job, the two people with the best optics that can see over the hull down cover. 
  4. Not true. Spotting is 1:1. If less of a vehicle is visible it is harder to spot. There are tons of anecdotal examples of this on these forums alone, people complaining that their tank can't see through some bush or through some smoke or dust, etc. The more obscured from view a vehicle is, the harder it is to spot initially. 
  5. The obvious answer is stop getting your tanks shot at. Regardless of what the tank is or what is shooting at it, it is never a good thing to be directly engaged. Again, this is a nitpick. Soft systems on the outside of a tank are more vulnerable than the best armored parts of the tank. This isn't rocket science. And we all know that if BFC were to introduce some form of "center mass deviation" where there was some random chance applied to shots to be off their aimpoints to varying degrees, you would likely be the first to start complaining about how unrealistic that is because ballistics are a well known and quantifiable science. 
  6. Mantlets are a historical weakspot on tanks, both in WWII and the modern era. Anywhere you have a gap or disconnect between otherwise solid parts is going to create structural weakness. 
On 6/9/2020 at 9:17 AM, Bulletpoint said:

In short, these factors combine to making hulldown a losing tactic for many AFVs in this game, whereas in reality it was part of doctrine, especially for StuGs etc.

This is objectively false. I already know the thread where this hysterical myth first gained infamy, and I don't feel the need to restate the obvious. If you think standing in the open is more conducive to your own survival, then more power to you.

Finally, its a game. It simulates combat pretty damn well. And its fun too. No game is perfect. No sim is perfect. Hell, some argue reality isn't perfect. If you can't get over that, and you really think the game is so terribly flawed in all these micro ways that add up to ruin the game, then just don't play it. Life is short. I'm sure there are better things out there than spending years constantly trying to prove the already known quantity that nothing is perfect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

this seems like the nitpick of all nitpicks

 

8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Absurd

 

8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Yes, and the sky is blue. Seriously, what is the point?

 

8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

you would likely be the first to start complaining

 

8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

I already know the thread where this hysterical myth first gained infamy

 

8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

If you can't get over that, and you really think

 

8 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

spending years constantly trying to prove the already known quantity that nothing is perfect

Calm down man. I was just making a summary of the claims made in the thread to help keep discussion on topic :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think mantlet penetrations are worth looking into.

 

I thought mantlets acted as additional armour, with the hill armour still underneath, and from head on they are often curved. 

Edit - just to be clear, what I am referring to above are mantlet penetrations that also penetrate the main armour.

No expert but seems a problem when I play 

Edited by AlexUK
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2020 at 6:09 PM, RobZ said:

1733578692_kwk43accuracyvstiger.thumb.jpg.6ddb29ac5ed44aa98f60ef0f2295336b.jpg

This red cross represents 2.5m x 2m used for accuracy tables. Those hits are from sherman 76mm at 2000m in a combat scenario. It seems 2 hits are outside that area. Meanwhile the 8.8cm KwK43 gun in training has 85% accuracy for that same target. So in this scenario the 76mm sherman in combat conditions have better accuracy than 8.8cm kwk43 has in training. This is fully zeroed of course, which would be about equal to the kwk43 training scenario where exact range is known to test accuracy.

This is why I can't come to the forums anymore. You people make my brain hurt.

If you park two stationary tanks across from each other on a flat surface under perfect weather conditions, and allow one tank to range the other and sit there plinking away at it's target, then that is TRAINING CONDITIONS. The observed accuracy of the guns is here demonstrated under TRAINING CONDITIONS. This is no different if you'd hung a paper target and told the gunner to shoot it. The American 76mm gun is wickedly accurate, and at 2000 meters range can easily bullseye the center of mass on a 2 meter target under TRAINING CONDITIONS. I mean, Jesus Christ it can plaster a FIVE INCH circle at 1000 meters no trouble at all. That's a target about the size of my hand fully stretched out, so a 2 meter target at 2000 meters is no trouble at all.

We're not shooting smoothbore cannons firing round shot here. Sheesh.

If you want to test accuracy under combat conditions, then create COMBAT conditions, and record your results. This game doesn't automagically create combat conditions just because you load a scenario and let it play. Load up a random map, put forces on both sides, and order them to attack each other. Then you can see how effective your gunnery is. When your targets are maneuvering, evading, popping smoke, shooting smoke, and shooting back to hit and kill, you'll likely see a reduction in your accuracy.

Of course, you might be having too much fun to come onto the forums and complain about gunnery, but that tends to happen when you just play the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2020 at 6:11 AM, holoween said:

I was trying to replicate the P4 vs Stuart test by having both sides use the hulldown command to get into position. I didnt manage to replicate the test but i did find an easily repeatable case of why i never even use the hulldown command anymore.

xKYUtu4.jpg

8RYwR8e.jpg

MOP2LGj.jpg

The tanks dont actually move up sufficiently to get a spot or be able to fire.

You're not using the command correctly. Hull Down target the BASE of the berm, not the top of the berm. You're telling the tank to go hull down in regards to the empty air on top of the berm. If an enemy tank was parked behind the berm, you would likely be able to shoot it, because it projects above the berm, but trying to shoot the ground on or behind the berm is impossible, because you are hull down in reference to it.

It's all relative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...