It is way, way too easy to snipe M113A2 gunners

[MikeyD]

I ran a quick, VERY unscientific test, an M113A2 at 200 and 375 meters from an enemy inf squad in the woodline. Vehicle facing the enemy. You've got about a 50-50 chance of ducking down before getting killed, apparently. Continuing the test, I dismounted my inf at the same positions and one-by-one they all died fairly rapidly. US really doesn't like using its M16s at long range (the sights are marked out to only 400m). I wondered what was knocking down my men, it turned out to be an. RPK-74.

[chuckdyke]

It is an old problem the Germans complained about it too. 

The 'hero' invite the man with the BAR to have a drink on me. Sometimes Green is required no Veteran takes on a Panther from the front. 

[THH149]

I'm not sure I understand the comparison between shooting at a 1x1 target and an 8x8 target. I'd expect the 1x1 target would be targetted fire while 8x8 would be area fire, same goes for 1x1 vs a buttoned up vehicle, if using small arms. Firing area against the vehicle if its buttoned up with small arms is only going to try to target optics so should be turret focussed or 2x2 perhaps

I would think the biggest driver of the successful targetting of unbottoned vehicle crew by small arms is the weapon, its sights and experience and what the target is doing, so 5.45mm +, good optics (not iron sights) and training (Veteran +) would seem to make a bigger difference to a 1x1 static target. Even if the target is moving at a close enough range, its not a jet plane, with concealment the bigger issue as if the vehicle is moving in and out of concealment, shooting time is shorter.

How about testing two 1x1 targets - one mounted another dismounted -  with the same weapons et al?

Best

THH

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, THH149 said:

I'm not sure I understand the comparison between shooting at a 1x1 target and an 8x8 target.

I keep a log which shows a pattern and is not based on testing which is the gospel here. The decision to fire on a full contact is best left in my opinion on the TacAI. Above was a 'green' unit which I made to face of the direction of the Panther. If I had played this as a new player I would have made a evasive action. On the end of the turn I saw smoke and a red cross. During replay it was a Panther and then it was who the heck did this? It paid I play on WeGo could reconstruct how it happened. Something like this happened twice before. A trooper with a .303 killed a Tiger Commander and a Soviet AT rifle also killed a Tiger commander. People who manually plot LOF never or very rarely pair marksmen against an AFV. Going by my log and experience I follow the manual and let the TacAI do most of the decision making when contact is made, 

[MikeyD]

Having a Russian squad shooting, you need to narrow down what exactly is doing the damage. AKM is listed in the manual as having an effective rage of 350m, AK-74 has an effective range of 500m, while RPK-74 and SVD both have effective ranges of 800m. Any of those weapons may be part of a Russian Squad. Casually observing Ruskies from camera level 3, its easy to mistake an RPK for an AK and be surprised by how your men are falling like ten pins.

[domfluff]

On 1/14/2022 at 12:03 AM, THH149 said:

I'm not sure I understand the comparison between shooting at a 1x1 target and an 8x8 target. I'd expect the 1x1 target would be targetted fire while 8x8 would be area fire, same goes for 1x1 vs a buttoned up vehicle, if using small arms. Firing area against the vehicle if its buttoned up with small arms is only going to try to target optics so should be turret focussed or 2x2 perhaps

The comparison I made was between the same weapon system targeting a single soldier, on foot and on the ground, compared to a single soldier sitting in a TC seat. Both are targeting the exact same size of target - they're both targeting one individual human.

The former has shots that spread over the entire action spot. The latter has shots which spread on a significantly tighter cone. It's as if (arbitrary values here) the first test has a spread in the trajectory calculations of +- 20% and the latter has a spread of +-5% - the latter spreads far less at the same distance, and for the same target.

This is behaviour which has been known and demonstrated on this forum for years. The root cause was my speculation, but that's not necessarily what's going on here. My mention of the 8x8 vs 1x1 was a suggestion that perhaps the deviation is a common percentage (i.e., they spread an arbitrary +- 10% for that weapon at that distance), but what they are deviating *from* is different. E.g., if the starting point in that calculation was a much smaller area, than a constant deviation percentage would spread far less. Purely speculation though, obviously.

To be clear:

I am not referring to the reaction times of tank commanders to button up. This used to be bad, but this behaviour has been tweaked, and I think I'm happy with how this is.

I am also not trying to say that unbuttoning a tank commander within small arms range is a good idea, or shouldn't get your TC killed. I imagine this is part of the reason why this has persisted for as long as it has, because the end result is "working as designed" - it should be a risk to unbutton, and it is. The issue is that this risk, which should exist and be a real problem, is larger than it should be.


 

Edited January 17, 2022 by domfluff

[Artkin]

On 1/16/2022 at 11:12 PM, MikeyD said:

Having a Russian squad shooting, you need to narrow down what exactly is doing the damage. AKM is listed in the manual as having an effective rage of 350m, AK-74 has an effective range of 500m, while RPK-74 and SVD both have effective ranges of 800m. Any of those weapons may be part of a Russian Squad. Casually observing Ruskies from camera level 3, its easy to mistake an RPK for an AK and be surprised by how your men are falling like ten pins.

The very first line of the very first post addressed this. 

[THH149]

On 1/17/2022 at 11:31 PM, domfluff said:

The comparison I made was between the same weapon system targeting a single soldier, on foot and on the ground, compared to a single soldier sitting in a TC seat. Both are targeting the exact same size of target - they're both targeting one individual human.

OK, theyre not exactly the same (ground pounder vs TC), but I get your point. I'm probably telling you how to suck eggs, but it seems that the fire vs the infantry is spread over the tile even if its just one guy (the ground is the target so to speak not the unit), but the fire against the TC is targetted more deliberately at that object.

I'm not sure I'd tweak the fire vs TCs but the fire vs ground units doesn't seem targetted enough.

Is there tests of different fire combos against different combinations of infantry? eg a demonstration that tile based fire is being used even if its just one spotted enemy.

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by THH149

[domfluff]

They are trying to target the individual soldier in both cases (and granted they're not exactly the same, but they're as close as you can get), but that the dispersion from the first is significantly more.

This is clearer with automatic fire, since that will inevitably spread more for all of the obvious reasons. This really looks like a bug in the underlying calculation, rather than something intentional or working as designed.

Where that bug actually is obviously not known (it'd require a look at the algorithm, for a start), I wouldn't take my suggestion of the cause as anything other than baseless speculation, but it's where I'd start looking personally.

[Redwolf]

5 hours ago, domfluff said:

They are trying to target the individual soldier in both cases (and granted they're not exactly the same, but they're as close as you can get), but that the dispersion from the first is significantly more.

This is clearer with automatic fire, since that will inevitably spread more for all of the obvious reasons. This really looks like a bug in the underlying calculation, rather than something intentional or working as designed.

This makes a lot of sense.

[c3k]

Gotta say, I agree with the observation that exposed crewmembers seem more vulnerable to iron sights at long range (anything over 100m) than soldiers in the open.

FWIW, iron sights at 300m, the front post covers an ENTIRE torso. No way can it be used for pinpoint fire vs. the upper half of head. 

[chuckdyke]

At least the T34/76 early models give the commander's chest good protection.

[civdiv]

On 1/11/2022 at 7:12 PM, domfluff said:

So there have been tests. The first clue was some forum posts from here years ago that showed SMG tracers firing at the unbuttoned tank commander, or at the vehicle. The vehicle had tracer fire going all over the action spot, and the unbuttoned one had a focused, tight cone going straight for the TC. The same weapon firing at the same range, but suddenly much more accurate?

Wouldn’t that be the product of aiming at something the size of a soldiers head as opposed to the entire width of the vehicle?
 

In regards to the one shot kill at 215 and 3 shot kill at 400+, it could happen but it is very unlikely. If it happens 1 in 100 chances, probably good to go. If happens even 1 in 10 then no, it’s broken.

Edited January 22, 2022 by civdiv

[civdiv]

On 1/17/2022 at 5:12 AM, MikeyD said:

Having a Russian squad shooting, you need to narrow down what exactly is doing the damage. AKM is listed in the manual as having an effective rage of 350m, AK-74 has an effective range of 500m, while RPK-74 and SVD both have effective ranges of 800m. Any of those weapons may be part of a Russian Squad. Casually observing Ruskies from camera level 3, its easy to mistake an RPK for an AK and be surprised by how your men are falling like ten pins.

Those ranges you are quoting are for an area target, I.e.; not some dude’s head.

[domfluff]

6 minutes ago, civdiv said:

Wouldn’t that be the product of aiming at something the size of a soldiers head as opposed to the entire width of the vehicle?
 

In regards to the one shot kill at 215 and 3 shot kill at 400+, it could happen but it is very unlikely. If it happens 1 in 100 chances, probably good to go. If happens even 1 in 10 then no, it’s broken.

Again, both circumstances are the same weapon, firing directly at the soldier - so both are the AI aiming and firing at a man-sized target.

The end result is that the shots that are targeting the tank commander/gunner are significantly more accurate that those on a target on foot.

[civdiv]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

Again, both circumstances are the same weapon, firing directly at the soldier - so both are the AI aiming and firing at a man-sized target.

The end result is that the shots that are targeting the tank commander/gunner are significantly more accurate that those on a target on foot.

Your post that I responded to said it was an unbuttoned APC gunner compared to the buttoned vehicle itself.

[domfluff]

Quite right, that was the "first clue". Tests since then have been carried out with the TC vs individual soldier, and have shown the same weird jump in accuracy.

[chuckdyke]

There could be a mathematical model which calculates the likelihood to be spotted. Already in an elevated position and we don't know how many units spotted the commander.

[Pelican Pal]

And again another obvious issue is that while infantry on the ground gain cover saves to abstract their ability to find micro terrain tank crewmen do not and are reliant on their animation positioning them. If you find any video of men sticking their heads out of a vehicle in combat its simple to see that they make attempts to reduce their exposure whenever possible which is something that CM crewmen do not do.

[FogForever]

I just opened up two BTR-60PA's and the exposed machine gunners went down within, oh, maybe 15 seconds against very weak counterfire fire.