Tank Gun Damage

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

I also wonder about wether the amount of tank gun damage in CMWW2 is authentic or not. Furthermore putting tanks in hull down might be problematic. There was already some discussion and testing done on this topic lately:

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by Aquila-SmartWargames

[JM Stuff]

Very impressive results !

[slysniper]

I agree, gun damage from the front has for a long time been modelled in a manor where it occurs too often.

As for noticing it or not while playing goes along with the concept of what are you trying to create a scenario to do. Most scenarios are not going to be armor vs armor frontal duels, so no problem in them.

 

I was making a scenario a long time ago where it was the classic armor focus, a few German heavies against a hoard of allied tanks.

Its the perfect way to prove that there is a issue here with how often the damage happens.

 

In my event, the engagement ranges were well over 1000 yards and  I can tell you that the German armor was still losing its guns at a high level of regularity. Even before the ranges decreased. It was enough to forget trying to make the scenario.

Since then, I have also noticed it in many battles where the German Heavy is likely going to have to take many frontal shots. So I have learned that it is not a good option for any game play.

Now what I would be interested in, does it happen to Russian heavys vs lighter hoards of the German. 

Never have that in a battle for it to be noticed,  but it should have the same issue, should it not.

 

But If someone could get some real world statistics as to likelyhood and prove the game is well above that, then you have a chance to get BF to adjust it possibly

 

[fireship4]

I would also like to see this fixed among other bugs, I just ragequit an attempt at the "Shield of Kiev" campaign in Black Sea: I lost at least  main guns to apparently invisible BMPs firing autocannon through the smoke my hapless Oplots deployed on being lased. I am on the last patch that didn't require paying extra though so I'm not holding out much hope!

Edited June 17, 2020 by fireship4

[MikeyD]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its a 'bug'. It just means it sucks going up against autocannons. There's a reason why autocannons in the game target tanks when smaller caliber weapons don't. If a Shilka or Tunguska fires a burst into your turret front there's not going to be much it won't break, from optics to antenna mounts to the gun barrel. The 20mm gun Wiesel in CMSF2 has up to 4 times the rate of fire as the 25mm Bushmaster gun on Bradley. Its hard to argue the incoming rounds should avoid hitting the gun barrel.

[danfrodo]

what's the thickness of metal around a gun barrel?  25mm maybe?  Makes sense that gun barrels are vulnerable.

 

[danfrodo]

and agreeing w fireship4 above, it's truly awful when my multi-million dollar super sophisticated weapons system gets knocked out by some little stupid LAV.  But hating that that doesn't mean it's not realistic.  On the plus side, I've disabled some russian MBTs using those ~25mm autocannons before, and on that side of the ledge it's always great fun.

[fireship4]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its a 'bug'. It just means it sucks going up against autocannons. There's a reason why autocannons in the game target tanks when smaller caliber weapons don't. If a Shilka or Tunguska fires a burst into your turret front there's not going to be much it won't break, from optics to antenna mounts to the gun barrel. The 20mm gun Wiesel in CMSF2 has up to 4 times the rate of fire as the 25mm Bushmaster gun on Bradley. Its hard to argue the incoming rounds should avoid hitting the gun barrel.

I am frustrated by my surmise these are in fact bugs, in part due to the thread by RobZ, and:

I believe the main gun on a MBT would be hard to knock out in real life, since it occupies such a small area from the front, and would be at an extreme angle of attack if from the near front.  Other shots (from the side for instance) would likely be directed at the mass of the tank.

To put a barrel out of action would I imagine require significant damage, since it is effectively a tube.

The chances of loosing a main gun when hit by an autocannon seem to be very high.  In the aforementioned mission, my Oplots lost their gun in perhaps 50% of cases where a BMP (3M?) autocannon hit them from the front.  Other systems were degraded the more hits were taken, and lost on occasion, but the main gun was always at great risk.  These were normally head-on encounters, normally with neither attacker nor defender hull-down.

Furthermore my frustration was compounded by the fact that my Oplots seemed to have baked bean juice on their optics, since they would take significant (minutes on occasion) time to spot BMPs showing the vast majority of their hulls while ordered to look directly at them.  And finally by the fact that I will likely not see this bug fixed wihout paying for an "engine upgrade".  This however is not the place for a discussion on the latter point, on which I concede the fact that the game remains frustratingly moreish, despite the achingly slow progress on the engine.

[c3k]

On 6/4/2020 at 2:59 AM, bruno2016 said:

Does anyone agree on the very high frequency of gun barrel damage by shots especially from the front and at long distance (noticed it even happens even at 500 + m) in CM2 WW2? This is to me very unrealistic; in tank battle detailed accounts, gun damage is always mentioned as an exception. And the few pictures taken show gun hit from the side. From the front would mean they are hit exactly in the muzzle brake or on the recoil mechanism near the mantlet (even the thick additional protection of the Elefant for instance, added in the field precisely to protect the ball mount) . Looks very unlikely to me. What are your thoughts?

My bold. I don't know if this has been addressed upstream (I have not read all the posts.)

Gun damage is NOT gun barrel damage. It may be, but it could also be: trunnion gear, alignment with optics, mantlet, elevation gear, firing mechanism (although most had backups), recoil mechanism, balance mechanism, and I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Consider how often that happens with WWII titles and then compare it to modern titles. 

[MikeyD]

Here's a famous group of pictures out of Hunnicutt's 'Pershing' I believe (or maybe this set is from another picture book). Pershing #38 'Fireball'. The first Pershing that was knocked out soon after arriving and completing training. And very nearly the first time Pershing saw combat. The first 88 round went through the coax mg aperture and the second round impacted the gun barrel end. Both those would be conserved 'rare lucky hits' but there they were, in the same engagement against the same tank almost as soon as it showed up. In a night engagement, at that.

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Here's a famous group of pictures out of Hunnicutt's 'Pershing' I believe (or maybe this set is from another picture book). Pershing #38 'Fireball'. The first Pershing that was knocked out soon after arriving and completing training. And very nearly the first time Pershing saw combat. The first 88 round went through the coax mg aperture and the second round impacted the gun barrel end. Both those would be conserved 'rare lucky hits' but there they were, in the same engagement against the same tank almost as soon as it showed up. In a night engagement, at that.

You keep missing the point. Nobody ever said extremely rare events ever happened.

[Hapless]

It might just be a perspective problem.

Looking at it sideways- how many times do US players run up against Tigers in Combat Mission? A lot, right? Because Tigers are cool and popular. But its shockingly unrealistic. That Pershing-Tiger engagement there is 1/3 of all the times the US Army fought Tiger Is in Western Europe. The Americans basically never fought Tiger 1s in the entire period covered by CMBN and CMFB up to the end of the war. It's a historically negligible event. But in games, of course, it happens all the time.

Leaving aside the fact that we've already seen enough photos spread out around the threads to show that gun barrel damage is more common than US-Tiger engagements in the historical record, it stands to reason that any reliance on "it seems like a rare event in real life" is about as effective an argument as "my panzer's mighty armour should let me do whatever I want with it."

The bottom line is that the enemy has to be shooting at you to damage your gun barrel. If you've put your tanks in a position where they're getting shot at, either accept the risk or work out where everything went wrong.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Hapless said:

Leaving aside the fact that we've already seen enough photos spread out around the threads to show that gun barrel damage is more common

Still witing for you or anyone else to show me a photo of a WW2 gun barrel penetrated from the front.

[Hapless]

A )

8 hours ago, MikeyD said:

B ) You might be clutching at straws if you're trying to suggest that the gun barrels of all tanks from all nations suffered fewer than 3 frontal hits in the entirety of WW2, whether there was anyone there with a camera to record it or not.

C ) The greater point is that assuming that it never ever happened ever in WW2 does not mean that it wouldn't happen in CM, even if CM was 100% realistic (which it isn't). Battlefront can only provide the tools for the players. If players decide to reverse towards the enemy, they run the risk of getting their engine knocked out. If players let the enemy shoot at the front of their tanks, they run the risk of getting their main gun knocked out.

[Bulletpoint]

17 minutes ago, Hapless said:

A )

8 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I'm not seeing a gun barrel penetrated in this pic. I'm seeing a damaged muzzle brake that would likely not prevent the gun from firing. 

 

18 minutes ago, Hapless said:

B ) You might be clutching at straws if you're trying to suggest that the gun barrels of all tanks from all nations suffered fewer than 3 frontal hits in the entirety of WW2, whether there was anyone there with a camera to record it or not.

You might want to read my post again. I was asking for pictures of gun barrels penetrated from the front, not damaged muzzle brakes.

 

19 minutes ago, Hapless said:

C ) The greater point is that assuming that it never ever happened ever in WW2 does not mean that it wouldn't happen in CM, even if CM was 100% realistic (which it isn't). Battlefront can only provide the tools for the players. If players decide to reverse towards the enemy, they run the risk of getting their engine knocked out. If players let the enemy shoot at the front of their tanks, they run the risk of getting their main gun knocked out.

It is not helpful to dismiss feedback to improve the game by insinuating players are incompetent. Or by muddling the discussion with strawmen arguments.

[fireship4]

Discussion aside, can we avoid quoting pictures in our responses lest the thread become un-navigable.

Statistics from WW2, pictures etc. will be of limited use - if they can tell us how the gun was rendered un-usable, and how representative this was of events in the field, that is useful in making sure the game reflects reality (our goal: admonitions to not put your tanks in dangerous situations miss the point), but I think it will be more instructive to see if there is anything about the way gun barrels, their subsystems, and projectile hits in general are modeled which would give large differences in results.  Is there a problem with high angle-of-attack hits?  Are the barrel and muzzle-brake modeled as one system?  Etc.

This is most easily done by Battlefront, it may even be a known issue which is a design trade-off.  Apart from this the cause can be narrowed down by further testing in the editor.

Edited June 24, 2020 by fireship4

[SimpleSimon]

8 hours ago, Hapless said:

It might just be a perspective problem.

Looking at it sideways- how many times do US players run up against Tigers in Combat Mission? A lot, right? Because Tigers are cool and popular. But its shockingly unrealistic. That Pershing-Tiger engagement there is 1/3 of all the times the US Army fought Tiger Is in Western Europe. The Americans basically never fought Tiger 1s in the entire period covered by CMBN and CMFB up to the end of the war. It's a historically negligible event. But in games, of course, it happens all the time.

Leaving aside the fact that we've already seen enough photos spread out around the threads to show that gun barrel damage is more common than US-Tiger engagements in the historical record, it stands to reason that any reliance on "it seems like a rare event in real life" is about as effective an argument as "my panzer's mighty armour should let me do whatever I want with it."

The bottom line is that the enemy has to be shooting at you to damage your gun barrel. If you've put your tanks in a position where they're getting shot at, either accept the risk or work out where everything went wrong.

This. The games lend their scenarios to melodrama, and one of the war's most dramatic events was invariably CLASH OF ARMOR type stuff. So the designers like to throw in tanks, lots of tanks, lots of the heaviest tanks, a lot. I don't blame them I mean the toys are cool and certainly one of the reasons why I signed up for the game but like on top of what Hapless here is saying I also think it's worth pointing out that the excessive reliance on the heaviest hardware in the games leads to many scenarios suffering from a sort of "Panzer Fatigue". I realized the effect this was having on my own method of play years ago in that it was making me excessively cautious and meticulous in ways that most certainly would've led to my relief from the front for "nerve shattered" or "lack of moral fiber" etc. Because I expected to run into a Tiger behind every freaking hedgerow, and the way campaigns were designed I actually would. 

Tanks lead to bloody battles period and they will invariably inflict many casualties and mission kills on each other when they encounter other tanks. This is why im getting a bit miffed when people suggest new ways to nerf tanks in the game when it seems to me like they're teetering on over-nerfed. The trouble is they're around too much and too many of the scenario are reliant on them either in support or as the set-piece. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by SimpleSimon

[fireship4]

Some very early testing results.  These are based on a few quick tests in the quick battle generator.

• Loosing an Oplot main gun to a BMP-2/3 autocannon seems coincident with hits to the weapon as opposed to the weapon mount judging by the hit text.
• The BMP seems to target multiple areas on the tank to put bursts into (seemingly contradicting what was happening in the thread by RobZ mentioned above), but focuses on the weapon mount with the Oplot.  If it by chance it chooses to put a burst into the lower front hull, the tank has a good chance of being knocked out.
• The Oplot seems particularly vulnerable, apparently similar hits to the weapon of an M1A2 have not put it out of action.

[Bulletpoint]

19 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

Tanks lead to bloody battles period and they will invariably inflict many casualties and mission kills on each other when they encounter other tanks.

We completely agree. My point is not that tanks should be invulnerable. I don't think anyone in this thread thinks so.

And yes, there are a lot of tanks in most CM scenarios compared to your average WW2 engagement. 

My point was only that there seems to be a problem with the modelling of the way shells penetrate gun barrels at extremely shallow angles.

[rocketman]

On 6/24/2020 at 12:13 PM, Bulletpoint said:

Still witing for you or anyone else to show me a photo of a WW2 gun barrel penetrated from the front.

Just a wild guess here, but here goes: in the game we can see all enemy tank hits with hit decals, in the war only knocked out tanks left behind could be studied. Not all knocked out tanks were photographed and not all photographs remain to be studied. Perhaps a lot of tanks with gun barrel damage were salvaged and repaired? Are there records of what tank repairs were made, would be interesting in this matter. But perhaps there is a limitation in the engine for the kind of grazing shot a hit straight to the front would be. The incoming shell hits the barrel at a very shallow angle so maybe it doesn't take much for it to skim off the surface and continue. Perhaps the engine detects contact and penetration is calculated making the barrel susceptible to full penetrations?

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, rocketman said:

Just a wild guess here, but here goes: in the game we can see all enemy tank hits with hit decals, in the war only knocked out tanks left behind could be studied. Not all knocked out tanks were photographed and not all photographs remain to be studied.

True, but I've seen quite a lot of photos of knocked out tanks. They liked taking pics of them, and especially of curious and unusual damage. Several of those pics show barrel penetrations, but only from the side.

I can't prove it never happened from the front at shallow angles, but I can only say I've never seen or read any evidence that it did.

1 hour ago, rocketman said:

But perhaps there is a limitation in the engine for the kind of grazing shot a hit straight to the front would be. The incoming shell hits the barrel at a very shallow angle so maybe it doesn't take much for it to skim off the surface and continue. Perhaps the engine detects contact and penetration is calculated making the barrel susceptible to full penetrations?

Possibly. That's what I assume. It's not that every shell digs into the barrel - it just seems to me that too many do, at too shallow an angle.

[c3k]

I'll repeat myself: "Gun damage" covers a LOT more than just a barrel.

 

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, c3k said:

I'll repeat myself: "Gun damage" covers a LOT more than just a barrel.

 

Sure. But this thread is about the barrel.

[Pete Wenman]

 

 

I'm not seeing a gun barrel penetrated in this pic. I'm seeing a damaged muzzle brake that would likely not prevent the gun from firing. 

 

Really - you'd be happy to fire a 90mm high explosive projectile down a barrel that is that badly damaged, and potentially partially blocked. I was never a tanker, but if that had ever happened to my rifle I sure as hell would not have fired another round. Guns and their associated mountings and recoil systems are pieces of high precision engineering, with very small tolerances. If these are exceeded, due to damage or other external factors, they stop working as designed and that is inherently dangerous given the amounts of energy at play.

  P

 

[Bulletpoint]

34 minutes ago, Pete Wenman said:

Really - you'd be happy to fire a 90mm high explosive projectile down a barrel that is that badly damaged, and potentially partially blocked. I was never a tanker, but if that had ever happened to my rifle I sure as hell would not have fired another round. Guns and their associated mountings and recoil systems are pieces of high precision engineering, with very small tolerances. If these are exceeded, due to damage or other external factors, they stop working as designed and that is inherently dangerous given the amounts of energy at play.

If I were facing a reloading Tiger a close range, then yes... I'd take the shot. Being a soldier in WW2 was a lot more dangerous than being a soldier today, and they often took crazy chances.

In this case, I don't think the bent muzzle break would do much to stop a 90mm AP round leaving the barrel. A quick HE fuze might be a different question.