Some tank duel tests (CMBN)

[Drifter Man]

A Type B tree, which did not have any effect when 1 to 3 were placed randomly around the tank, gives some protection when the tank is right behind the trunk.

A tentative contact marker from early intel helps a great deal.

Table 7. Supplementary tests. Effect of a tree standing directly in front of the Defender. Effect of a contact marker provided to the Defender by giving him 100% intel strength. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.

Attacker		Defender
Grass	44%	54%	Grass + 1x Type B Tree as protection
No intel	29%	71%	100% intel

[chuckdyke]

16 minutes ago, Drifter Man said:

Of course, I only engage in honest and equitable duels. I never fire at the enemy if I think I have a superior tank.

Ok each his own, Abrams vs a Toyota Pick Up Truck is my style. Naturally from the flanks from a hull down ambush. First call in some fighter bombers and artillery to make sure  

[Hapless]

9 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

I should add one more point:

7. You can do everything right and still lose.

7.5. You can do everything wrong and still win.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Hapless

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Hapless said:

7.5. You can everything wrong and still win.

Yes, they don't use a tactical nuclear warhead in the game. 

[Drifter Man]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Ok each his own, Abrams vs a Toyota Pick Up Truck is my style. Naturally from the flanks from a hull down ambush. First call in some fighter bombers and artillery to make sure  

As @Bulletpoint can confirm, I do not attack with more than 4 on 1. 5 on 1 would not be fair.

1 hour ago, Hapless said:

7.5. You can do everything wrong and still win.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Drifter Man said:

As @Bulletpoint can confirm, I do not attack with more than 4 on 1. 5 on 1 would not be fair.

Okay I will post something about don't get shot at. It was 2:1 infantry tactics. Against an enemy in a covered and concealed position. Here it is. Team A suppresses Team B Direct Area Fire, Movement Assault. During all the movement they keep firing and even now we see combat stress. Don't duel they did it while team A was engaging. 

[slysniper]

The original data is good info. 

Its not like common sense lets you know most of the ones that matter. But its still nice to see a number as to which ones are enough to focus on during play.

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

Effect of a contact marker provided to the Defender by giving him 100% intel strength. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.

Thanks but this is from a stationary start. The scenario I would really like to see tested is one that keeps happening in pretty much all games: The attacking tank starts out of LOS, gets intel on the enemy tank through C2, then moves up to (partial) hull-down with LOS on the enemy. In this case, what is the difference in outcome between having the contact marker and not having it? The attacker gains advantage from the intel, but disadvantage from having to move into view.

And secondly: The game has a bug where if the enemy tank moves after you gain the contact marker, the new position of the tank is not updated through C2. In this case, does the contact marker still "work" - that is, does it still give the attacker a benefit even though the enemy tank is now not at the original position? Or can the defender effectively negate the attacker's intel bonus by just moving his tank a bit to the side?

Thanks again for taking the time to run these tests. Most of the results just confirm "common sense", but it's nice to see some hard numbers.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[chuckdyke]

9 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Thanks but this is from a stationary start. The scenario I would really like to see tested is one that keeps happening in pretty much all games: The attacking tank starts out of LOS, gets intel on the enemy tank through C2, then moves up to (partial) hull-down with LOS on the enemy. In this case, what is the difference in outcome between having the contact marker and not having it? The attacker gains advantage from the intel, but disadvantage from having to move into view.

And secondly: The game has a bug where if the enemy tank moves after you gain the contact marker, the new position of the tank is not updated through C2. In this case, does the contact marker still "work" - that is, does it still give the attacker a benefit even though the enemy tank is now not at the original position? Or can the defender effectively negate the attacker's intel bonus by just moving his tank a bit to the side?

Thanks again for taking the time to run these tests. Most of the results just confirm "common sense", but it's nice to see some hard numbers.

Very good point, I think you keep the benefit if the tank of the contact marker is the same tank even if the tank makes full contact after changing position. It is purely subjective thinking on my part. But it is not unreasonable to think that a tank commander would be still alert and can figure out the enemy's next move. If they would publicize fully how the game engine works, it would be the ultimate intel and the game wouldn't be worth playing. If my positions are overwhelmed with contact icons I will resume recon to refresh them. Assume that the dimmer contact icons are not the same. 

[chuckdyke]

Shoot out at the Aachen Corral wonder why he wasted an HVAP at this range (340 meters)? A fair duel caught him completely unaware. 

[Drifter Man]

22 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Thanks but this is from a stationary start. The scenario I would really like to see tested is one that keeps happening in pretty much all games: The attacking tank starts out of LOS, gets intel on the enemy tank through C2, then moves up to (partial) hull-down with LOS on the enemy. In this case, what is the difference in outcome between having the contact marker and not having it? The attacker gains advantage from the intel, but disadvantage from having to move into view.

And secondly: The game has a bug where if the enemy tank moves after you gain the contact marker, the new position of the tank is not updated through C2. In this case, does the contact marker still "work" - that is, does it still give the attacker a benefit even though the enemy tank is now not at the original position? Or can the defender effectively negate the attacker's intel bonus by just moving his tank a bit to the side?

Thanks again for taking the time to run these tests. Most of the results just confirm "common sense", but it's nice to see some hard numbers.

Yes, that would be interesting to find out, too. It will take some rearrangements to get this right, but I'll look into it.

[chuckdyke]

On 1/25/2021 at 8:47 PM, Drifter Man said:

Yes, that would be interesting to find out, too. It will take some rearrangements to get this right, but I'll look into it.

It depends which period you play (FB, SF2). You don't operate a single tank. In WW 2 on Hunt Turrets open and concentrate on taking terrain. The Russian and Germans had breakthrough tanks. The closest the allies had were infantry tanks like the Churchill which were under gunned. In WW 2 there is no way out of attrition. The Firefly and TD's vs the German big cats needs a concealed fire position and catch hopefully the Germans in time. 

[griffin33]

Drifter Man:  Excellent discussion.  Was this done on Engine 4?  Because in the latest tank battle I played (RDM - Colossal Crack – CW), it appeared the AA guns on tanks would not fire when the crew was exposed.  I noted it particularly on the Achilles, because it had no MG capability at all when open.  And when I attempted to ambush Panthers in a village, the Achilles did not seem to acquire the targets as they moved into sight, even using covered arcs.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

7 hours ago, griffin33 said:

Drifter Man:  Excellent discussion.  Was this done on Engine 4?  Because in the latest tank battle I played (RDM - Colossal Crack – CW), it appeared the AA guns on tanks would not fire when the crew was exposed.  I noted it particularly on the Achilles, because it had no MG capability at all when open.  And when I attempted to ambush Panthers in a village, the Achilles did not seem to acquire the targets as they moved into sight, even using covered arcs.

The AAMG on all of the M10 based TDs can only fire to the rear of the turret.....Just look at how it is mounted.  

If you want to fire it forward, you need to do this:

CM tank crew can't do that.   

These TDs typically travel with their turrets traversed to the rear, I'd guess the AAMG is mostly for self defence while travelling thus (other than it's use against aircraft, if the Germans had any, obviously). 

[Drifter Man]

15 hours ago, griffin33 said:

Drifter Man:  Excellent discussion.  Was this done on Engine 4?  Because in the latest tank battle I played (RDM - Colossal Crack – CW), it appeared the AA guns on tanks would not fire when the crew was exposed.  I noted it particularly on the Achilles, because it had no MG capability at all when open.  And when I attempted to ambush Panthers in a village, the Achilles did not seem to acquire the targets as they moved into sight, even using covered arcs.  

The tests were done in CMBN v4.03. The Pz IVH (late), which was used in the tests on both sides, never fired any of its MGs at the opposing Pz IV. I believe it was because of the distance - 600 m.

I another test, not reported here, I used a Sherman, which fired its M2 HB at this distance. Again, the opposing Pz IV would not fire its MGs back.

Everything reported in this thread involves firing only the 75mm main gun.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Drifter Man

[Drifter Man]

8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

These TDs typically travel with their turrets traversed to the rear, I'd guess the AAMG is mostly for self defence while travelling thus (other than it's use against aircraft, if the Germans had any, obviously). 

If I recall correctly it was mounted to counterbalance the heavy main gun and shield. I'll dig up the reference when I have time.

Edit: The source is Hunnicutt, but I misremembered. What he says is that the MG was located in the rearmost corner in an attempt to balance the turret, but not that the MG itself was installed to be a counterbalance.

Anyway, that's a digression. I'll be back with results.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Drifter Man

[chuckdyke]

Take the run of the mill M4 Sherman with the 75 mm gun. It can brew up an identical Sherman on about any CM map, let alone 88 mm / L56 of the Tiger or the 75mm /L70 of the Panther. Patton's method fire AP at a German's Tank followed by white phosphorus smoke. The effect of the phosphorus is that it set the tank of the Germans alight. I wonder or you could do that in Combat Mission. 

[chuckdyke]

12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The AAMG on all of the M10 based TDs can only fire to the rear of the turret.....Just look at how it is mounted.  

If you want to fire it forward, you need to do this:

CM tank crew can't do that.   

These TDs typically travel with their turrets traversed to the rear, I'd guess the AAMG is mostly for self defence while travelling thus (other than it's use against aircraft, if the Germans had any, obviously). 

The AA .50 Cal had another important function. That is to fire at the top floors of tall buildings. The main armament had often not enough elevation. Neither has the 0.50 Cal in CM. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

5 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

Edit: The source is Hunnicutt, but I misremembered. What he says is that the MG was located in the rearmost corner in an attempt to balance the turret, but not that the MG itself was installed to be a counterbalance.

The turret counterbalance weights are the big angular bits sticking out of the back of the turret:

Those ain't stowage bins!

 

[chuckdyke]

The other question is under which angle the other guy is shooting at your tank. This is dramatic, the armor factor can easily double by just spinning the tracks. 

[KGBoy]

Don't know how much anybody uses it but what about using HIDE while waiting for the mouse? One hears the Marder but with hide you don't? Does HIDE make the tank sleepy?

[Drifter Man]

23 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The turret counterbalance weights are the big angular bits sticking out of the back of the turret:

Those ain't stowage bins!

 

Good picture @Sgt.Squarehead. I can see a good amount of effort went into ensuring that the weight is where it needs to be (as far back as possible) and at the same time that it does not fall off.

[chuckdyke]

19 hours ago, KGBoy said:

Don't know how much anybody uses it but what about using HIDE while waiting for the mouse? One hears the Marder but with hide you don't? Does HIDE make the tank sleepy?

It turns off the engine, I think. Supposed to leave less of a sound contact behind.

[Drifter Man]

On 1/25/2021 at 1:40 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Thanks but this is from a stationary start. The scenario I would really like to see tested is one that keeps happening in pretty much all games: The attacking tank starts out of LOS, gets intel on the enemy tank through C2, then moves up to (partial) hull-down with LOS on the enemy. In this case, what is the difference in outcome between having the contact marker and not having it? The attacker gains advantage from the intel, but disadvantage from having to move into view.

And secondly: The game has a bug where if the enemy tank moves after you gain the contact marker, the new position of the tank is not updated through C2. In this case, does the contact marker still "work" - that is, does it still give the attacker a benefit even though the enemy tank is now not at the original position? Or can the defender effectively negate the attacker's intel bonus by just moving his tank a bit to the side?

Thanks again for taking the time to run these tests. Most of the results just confirm "common sense", but it's nice to see some hard numbers.

Done. First, the reference case with no contact marker [R5] was the same as an old one [R2], but I did it again because the test now starts 5 minutes into the scenario. This time was needed to acquire the contact by the spotting unit and relay it to the tank (the Attacker) + to move the Defender tank by 60 meters in the last test with marker in an incorrect position. Since the game appears to have a ca 7-second spotting cycle, I wanted all test cases to be synchronized in time. The new reference case ended up being 38:61 for the Defender, compared to 41:57 in [R2]. I'd say that's within statistical error.

Having a contact marker gives a clear advantage to the Attacker. If it is in an incorrect position because the Defender tank has moved and the marker has not been updated to the new position, the advantage does not significantly change, if at all.

Table 8. Supplementary tests – contact markers. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using Hunt. He is optionally provided with a contact marker on the Defender by a spotting unit. The Defender is stationary and has no contact marker. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.

Attacker		Defender
No contact marker [R5]	38%	61%	[R5] No contact marker
Contact marker - correct position	58%	39%	No contact marker
Contact marker - incorrect position	61%	37%	No contact marker

Having a tentative contact marker on the Defender improves the Attacker’s chances in the duel. It does not matter if the marker is in an old (incorrect) position.

[Drifter Man]

19 hours ago, KGBoy said:

Don't know how much anybody uses it but what about using HIDE while waiting for the mouse? One hears the Marder but with hide you don't? Does HIDE make the tank sleepy?

I don't think that using Hide alone is a good method - Hide will probably just prevent the unit from firing unless fired upon. Hide + Target Arc might help - then the unit should then open fire at a target that enters the arc. I think I can run two more tests on that.