Some tank duel tests (CMBN)

[Drifter Man]

On 1/13/2022 at 4:47 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Approximately 50 pct better according to the test of the effects of a contact marker. So a tank with spotting power 100 would have 150. But only after the tank riders spot the enemy and share the contact, which takes some time.

This may not be the right interpretation - let me summarize what the test have shown about this topic:

1. When two opened up Pz IV are duelling at 600 m, the one having assistance of infantry for spotting has about 56:43 chance of winning [the remainder being situations when neither side wins, i.e. neither tank ends up destroyed]
2. When two buttoned up Pz IV are duelling, the odds change to 74:24 for the one having infantry assistance. This is not the same thing as 50% improvement in spotting.
3. When two opened up Pz IV are duelling, the one having a contact marker delivered by early intel has 71:29 chance of winning. This is similar to infantry help that is instantly successful and passed to the tank at the start of the scenario, so it is better than case 1.

I do not think that infantry would help an open topped AFV much because open topped AFVs spot well for themselves, and already the effect of infantry on the opened up Pz IVs was not dramatic (56:43).

I do not think an infantry team would be enough to make the spotting chances equal in a fight of a tank vs an open topped AFV, but it is better than nothing.

 

[chuckdyke]

Tank going into action with a tentative contact.

Fired automatically unbuttoned and he spotted infantry in a forest. Without infantry he would probably been ambushed by a Panzerfaust. Infantry nearby is a must for armor. I appreciate your tests and take note of your findings. Spotting improvement with infantry is uncanny. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Drifter Man said:

When two buttoned up Pz IV are duelling, the odds change to 74:24 for the one having infantry assistance. This is not the same thing as 50% improvement in spotting.

Technically it's not the same. But for all intents and purposes, in a completely symmetrical situation between two identical tanks, winning the duel is a decent proxy for spotting, since statistically the tank that spots the other first is going to win.

So going from roughly 50/50 odds to 75/25 would mean a 50 pct improvement in odds, which I personally interpret as a 50 pct. improvement to spotting checks. I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly the number typed into the engine somewhere.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[Drifter Man]

Good - I see your logic now @Bulletpoint.

Just keep in mind that this specific result applies to a duel of buttoned up vehicles and that the probability of spotting first in a duel is not the same thing as the probability of spotting (when there is an opportunity).

But, as @chuckdyke says - the important thing to remember is that infantry helps. By how many % it helps depends on many variables that the tests do not cover.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd imagine the quality of the infantry would be a factor and presumably if they share the same parent formation with the vehicles information should flow a bit faster?

Edited January 14, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Redwolf]

How does plain infantry spotting compare to -say- an open top vehicle?

[chuckdyke]

Something you maybe interested in @Drifter Man  

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Very interesting. 

Not sure how useful it would be in game though.

[Drifter Man]

On 1/15/2022 at 5:58 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'd imagine the quality of the infantry would be a factor and presumably if they share the same parent formation with the vehicles information should flow a bit faster?

I am looking specifically at spotting now, rather than at the speed of communication. The question is whether two units  sitting right next to each other but belonging to different parent formations, possibly without C2 links, will communicate without having to go through their HQs.

In my tests the infantry belonged to the same parent formation.

[Drifter Man]

On 1/15/2022 at 6:23 AM, Redwolf said:

How does plain infantry spotting compare to -say- an open top vehicle?

I plan to test individual infantry at some point, which should give us an answer.

Just don't hold your breath for it - each test takes 3 days and I have a long list to go through!

[Drifter Man]

On 1/15/2022 at 8:18 PM, chuckdyke said:

Something you maybe interested in @Drifter Man  

Yep, very interesting. I've been zeroing in on-map mortars on occasions but never thought about using it with tanks.

It is a double edged sword - you tell your opponent that your tank is there. And you don't want to be busy zeroing in while the enemy tanks show up! But it is useful to know e.g. that if an enemy tank fired at a certain spot (at your infantry maybe) you shouldn't appear with your tank near that spot.

It is also interesting that the tank can zero in using the MG. This probably shouldn't work in real life as the MG rounds have a very different trajectory.

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

It is also interesting that the tank can zero in using the MG.

Well you would know the distance if you use the MG. I don't know or it inspired the .50 aiming gun design of the Centurion. I just shared the video some people can find it useful.  

[chuckdyke]

22 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Not sure how useful it would be in game though.

If you prepare a defense against the AI? A human player may wonder why an IFV is shooting at some silly spot.

 

[Bufo]

6 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

each test takes 3 days and I have a long list to go through!

How many iterations do you do?

[Redwolf]

6 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

It is also interesting that the tank can zero in using the MG. This probably shouldn't work in real life as the MG rounds have a very different trajectory.

I for one am unconvinced that ground hitting fire (no matter which gun) will improve hit probability on tanks later in that spot. Zeroing in is very limited in CM, quickly lost and pretty much carried over from nothing to nothing.

[KGBoy]

7 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

It is also interesting that the tank can zero in using the MG. This probably shouldn't work in real life as the MG rounds have a very different trajectory.

Are we sure this is the result of zeroing? I would be curious if the non-firing tank had an Armour Target Arc on that spot if this would improve its' hit ratio?

[John Kettler]

Drifter Man,

Congratulations on what has to be the most comprehensive testing and analysis done by a regular CM player in the entire history of Combat Mission going clear back to the Beta Demo for CMBO! What you've done is simply extraordinary and studied a great many matters never gone into at all in the two decades of testing done by the mere mortals since the CM series began. Have lots more reading to do, but wanted to say two things. The first is that US Army studies have over and over again found that the key determinant of tank dueling success was first spot and resultant first shot, typically resulting in a win some 80% of the time. Second, I had no idea whatsoever that a TRP could have any effect at all on a Direct Fire engagement, since I always thought of them, and saw them used, for Indirect Fire. But it occurs to me that militaries have long used all sorts of natural and inconspicuous manmade markers to show known range/s to nearby targets. An example would be to open fire with ATGs as soon as the foe's tanks are up to a certain rock.

Regards,

JOhn Kettler

[Sgt.Squarehead]

3 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Second, I had no idea whatsoever that a TRP could have any effect at all on a Direct Fire engagement, since I always thought of them, and saw them used, for Indirect Fire. But it occurs to me that militaries have long used all sorts of natural and inconspicuous manmade markers to show known range/s to nearby targets. An example would be to open fire with ATGs as soon as the foe's tanks are up to a certain rock.

That's how TRPs work in game more or less.....They only improve the acccuracy of direct fire while the firing unit is stationary in its starting position, as soon as the unit moves the bonus is lost. 

They work particularly nicely with powerful antitank guns IMHO.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[chuckdyke]

TRP's during the siege of Tobruk were done during night patrols. They cut jerrycans in half. Painted the inside white and the outside a desert pattern. So when the battle started they saw the 'TRPs' to aid FOs and direct fire weaponry. Wish they showed that in the movie. They just mention the night patrols.

 

[Bulletpoint]

6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That's how TRPs work in game more or less.....They only improve the acccuracy of direct fire while the firing unit is stationary in its starting position, as soon as the unit moves the bonus is lost. 

This is also how I thought they worked. But recently I was told that TRPs improve accuracy for even units that have moved. I had a discussion with someone about it, maybe it was @Drifter Man?

[chuckdyke]

What is the definition of accuracy in the game? Or is it the ability to spot enemy units quicker? 

 

[Redwolf]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

This is also how I thought they worked. But recently I was told that TRPs improve accuracy for even units that have moved. I had a discussion with someone about it, maybe it was @Drifter Man?

Might have been me. My memory says that the benefit is lost after moving. But I don't have a reference for that and testing it is too time-consuming for me right now.

[Erwin]

According to wicki:

"TRPs apply to all artillery on the side, except for on-board artillery which has moved after setup."

https://combatmission.fandom.com/wiki/Target_registration_point

Also:

 

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Erwin

[Bulletpoint]

10 minutes ago, Erwin said:

According to wicki:

"TRPs apply to all artillery on the side, except for on-board artillery which has moved after setup."

https://combatmission.fandom.com/wiki/Target_registration_point

Also:

 

 

The question is not about artillery, but about regular units (tanks, infantry, etc)

[Erwin]

My recollection is that the accuracy is only improved for any unit that does not move.  It makes sense.

 

•  

Posted January 20, 2003

  Quote

Originally posted by Slappy:

 

 

Guns get greater accuracy in the area of the target (not sure about movement on this one, I don't generally move my ATGs much).

It's easy to forget this one, but this pre-sighting gives your guns 95-99% accuracy. They're said to be bore-sighted. It can be a great way to kill an enemy tank. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Erwin