s bakker Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 Well let's try to start a interesting thread for once . Jus kidding. (Flame me, i want too :rolleyes . It is said since the allied tanks where seriously outclassed by the heavier german tanks like tigers they developed specific tactics to battle those. For example; -Firing HE on tigers (turret) to smash vision blocks and generally disorientate the commander. -Deliberatly fire at the tracks to immobilize them as to make flankshots easier. (Well you could consider this a general tactic). -The infamous 'bounce' shot. When faced with panthers allied tankers tried to bounce AP shots of hard ground just before the panthers as to penetrate the much thinner low hull or even belly armour. -(off topic) Soviet AR crews were trained to fire at the command copulca as to disable or surpress the tank commander. I wonder if above tactics are used by CM's AI? And if not, could the player ? And i particullary want to know if the bounce shot was just a war legend or a feasible battlefield tactic. Sounds like a long shot to me . grtz s bakker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 British tankers were specifically instructed to aim for the underside of the Panther's gun mantlet to deflect the shot downward through the driver's compartment. I'll try and dig up a reference, but it still sounds like a one-in-a-million shot to me. But I guess if you're facing a Panther head on in a Sherman, you're already dead so wtf... ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Pender Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 Hello S Bakker, Try searching under "skipping" at rounds Take care John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s bakker Posted February 9, 2000 Author Share Posted February 9, 2000 Thanks john, that was an interstin read ! But yet it merely covered the skipping / bounce tactic. I still wonder about the other tactics i mentioned. It would be nice if for example light or medium anti-tank guns with no hope of pentrating front or side armour would make themselves usefull by gunning for the command copulca and tracks would it ? It think it would be realistic too. grtz s bakker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted February 9, 2000 Share Posted February 9, 2000 There just was a thread about using HE against armor. One does what one must, but it's not something I would make a habit of, as an opposing TC. If you target a tank with ANY kind of small arms within a reasonable range, you can force the TC to button, or kill him if he doesn't. The sniper in Riesberg is great for this. AT gunners are much closer to ground level than the command cupola on a tank turret. If you look at pictures of those German tanks that have cupolas, you'll see the problem- there's just not that much to aim at. BIG AT guns use the same targeting philosophy as tanks; little AT guns hope for the ambush flank or rear shot. Or, they will die a lot, to quote Mr. Peng. Tank gunners are usually trained to go for center-of-mass, generally the turret ring, and of course to try for flank and rear shots. Beyond that, specifying the command cupola seems highly unrealistic, since in combat conditions you'd be doing well to hit the enemy tank at all. Aiming for a relatively tiny target on the roof of an enemy tank would result in a high percentage of "overs" and complete misses are a Bad Thing. Track hits are the slender hope of the outgunned. The effects of a track hit are already modeled. If you miss the track, you either miss the tank, or hit it somewhere else. Deliberately targeting tracks is a much higher percentage shot than the cupola, however. Since it's a larger target, a low shot can still skip in to a mobility kill, and a high shot will at least shake up the occupants. Of course if you hit it somewhere else with an impotent round, you have a highly pissed-off tank with a fix on your location. So, a feature that specifies a point on the enemy tank as the target doesn't seem to add much that isn't already there. You designate the tank and let the TacAI do the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s bakker Posted February 9, 2000 Author Share Posted February 9, 2000 Mark IV, thanks for the lenghty (and informative) reply. Don’t get me wrong though i am not preaching ‘a feature that specifies a point on the enemy tank as the target’ , i was just wondering what CM does and doesn’t do. That doesn’t mean i demand it should be in CM, it seems too much posts are mis-interpeted in this way already (ask AH64D J ). Anyways; ‘ Track hits are the slender hope of the outgunned. The effects of a track hit are already modeled ‘ Great ! Now, to go completely overboard on that here is an example of what i would love to see an AI do (maybe whith a little help): For example: A couple (or platoon?) of sherman 75’s stumble on a lonely tiger. It’s no use for the shermans to duke it out, since they are outgunned and have no hopes for achieving frontal penetration on the tiger. If the tiger is far away they should fire smoke or pop smoke and get the hell outta there. If the tiger is close they should get more agressive. They could put smoke directly in front of the tiger OR target it’s tracks OR put HE on it to disorientate it and preferably all three . Then one or two should go for the flank shot. ‘ If you look at pictures of those German tanks that have cupolas, you'll see the problem- there's just not that much to aim at.’ Agreed, while the russians used AR against these hard to hit targets (who had to be close anyway) in CM’s setting this is not a very valid tactic. With bazookas and schrecks at your disposal your a much bigger threat to the whole of the tank. ‘Of course if you hit it somewhere else with an impotent round, you have a highly pissed-off tank with a fix on your location.’ Yep, imagine a platoon of stuarts just happily pecking on an tiger instead of high-tailing it out of there. But sadly enough i’ve seen it happen in some computer wargames though ...... I understand the AI already has enough wits to manouver it’s AFV’s behind cover if threatened (foliage, terrain or burning collegeas). That already brings a tear to my eye. grtz s bakker PS: the more i learn about CM the more i like it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 I'm not sure it will go into CM 1.0, but we do in fact plan on having underclassed AT weapons have a higher chance of hitting tracks. The logic is that a Sherman 75 knows it has no hope of KOing a King Tiger from the side at any distance, so logically the gunner would aim for the most obvious weak spot -> the tracks. Tracks aren't easy to hit, and any kind of hit is better than none at all, so this won't result in a windfall of disabled heavy tanks for sure Just a slightly more realistic chance of hitting tracks. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 And when you get around to CM2, be sure to model the training the Russians had to use the ATR's to go after the cupola, and vision blocks. I need to go research in a book or two, but I am sure that I read that they were trained to try to blind the commander via shattered glass. Somewhere in a book there was a passage about one of the early Tigers used on the EF, and upon returning from battle there were literally scores of hits, and a huge concentration of ATR hits high on the turret and peppering the cupola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s bakker Posted February 10, 2000 Author Share Posted February 10, 2000 Herr Oberst, propably in Jentz' Tiger I and II; Combat tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted February 10, 2000 Share Posted February 10, 2000 You have the correct author I think, but the Jentz books I have are Panzer Truppen I & II. That may well be the source though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s bakker Posted February 10, 2000 Author Share Posted February 10, 2000 Well, he wrote more then those books. Just look at this URL: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Author=Jentz%2C%20Thomas%20L./ref=sim_artist_detail/104-3018119-9260443 Grtz S bakker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts