Tanaka Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 Hi, 1st of all sorry for the long post and the gramatical errors that you mey find. As the subject tells... 1) We get on armored targets the hit chance and the kill probability, on infantry targets the exposure, why we don't get information on anarmored targets ? ( like jeeps, trucks,SdKfz, boats and so on...) 2)I've noticed, after a few testes, that bazookas and Shrecks are very poor weapons to use against anarmored targets ( see note in the end ). This is because they seem to fire to this kind of targets as they were infantry ( using the blast to kill and not the penetration factor as they should ). We all know the efect of a bazooka on a pick-up or any other kind of modern jeep used in 3rd world country wars, so why this situation on CM ? Note. ( Tests resultes ) Test - I Used a Truk ( sillhouette 104 ) for US and a PzShreck for the Germans, the terrain is open and they are both stoped. ( I only counted the 1st shoot of the movie turn, after this one the truck was moving back ) 100 m shot ---> 0 out of 5 50 m shot ---> 1 out of 5 ( The shot that took out the truck didn't hit the truck... was the blast that did the job ) Game experience- The tanks use HE rounds to knock out anarmored targets, most of the time when they menaged to disable the target is due to the blast. While this is understandable, they are saving AP rounds for more dangerous targets, the result is that light armored targets are easier to destroy then anarmored ones. The best way to destroy an anarmored target is within the 50 m range using Infantry or an HMG or yet a well placed artellery barrage. Some of these anarmored weapons are formidable opponents, the SdKfz 7/1 ( sise 120 ! ) is one of them, it destroys with ease any light armored target that the Allies can field, annihilates infantry and above all it attracts to it your tank fire that will likely miss, exposing in this way your tank to the enemy's tank. Use 2 or more of them and your enemy will need to be very lucky to have a chance. The gamey tatic of recon with jeeps is a very good way to reveal all hiden PzShrecks without fear of losing the jeep to a PzShreck, and above all the jeep MG will fire to the PzShrecks and most likely kill them in the first burst ! (I've missed several times 10m ( and under ) shots to a jeepMG) Thanks for your attention, João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 10-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 The simple answer is – you are correct. Antitank guns are not the best way to kill soft-skin vehicles. The drivers usually run away if you so much as make derogatory accusations about their mothers, so there's no need for big guns. Machineguns or even rifles are ideal. David ------------------ '...With mortar shells raining down everywhere, he said, "Come along, Padre".' When Egen showed reluctance, Tatham-Warter reassured him. 'Don't worry,' he said, 'I've got an umbrella.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cav Gunner Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 1) Because since unarmored targets are just that, unarmored, the probability that a direct hit will take out the vehicle is virtually certain. 2) I have never had any problems using shrecks or zooks to take out unarmored vehicles, so I can't verify your statement. In any case, trucks and jeeps are usually taken out by MG or cannon fire long before they get in range of the launcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 I will vouch for the effectivness of inf ATweapons against unarmored targets. Having mounted a full company in halftracks, I devised a cunning plan...after hiding the tracks would burst over a hill, catchibng ym enemy just as he last ammo the mortars had to fire ran out. Then the company having essentially been carried int the suppressed enemies position, would leap out and strom the building and surrounding trees. 3 shreck rounds later, half of my tracks were dead, and the infantry fleeing (thewy mostly died too) the three that did make it to the posioins were eliminated by hand grenades..I lost a company and all its vehicles in under3 turns. ------------------ "...and he was told that the persians were so great in numbers that their arrows would block the sun, to which Leonidas replied 'all the better, for we shall be able to fight in the shade'" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Devils Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: Hi, Note. ( Testes resultes ) João<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhh,huh-huh-huh...he said "testes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 Red Devils wrote: > Uhh,huh-huh-huh...he said "testes." Oh no, what are we going to do now? – Shoot him? – Shoot yourself? – Shoot me? – Run around screaming "HE SAID TESTES!!"? – Take into account his first sentence, "1st of all sorry for the long post and the gramatical errors that you mey find."? – Complain to the Authorities? – Write a book about it? – Shut up and go to bed? (this is my first choice) Just ignore me. David ------------------ '...With mortar shells raining down everywhere, he said, "Come along, Padre".' When Egen showed reluctance, Tatham-Warter reassured him. 'Don't worry,' he said, 'I've got an umbrella.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 David, Red Devils was just having some fun. He said it Bevis and Butthead style. Tanaka, for your information, the plural of test is tests. Testes is a part of the male anatomy. English is obviously not your first language, so I am just trying to teach you the proper spelling, not make fun of you. As far as the substance of your question, I have nothing to add because I have never seen a truck in a PBEM, and the only time I tried to use a tank to destroy a truck in a scenario the tank would switch to a target of higher priority rather than shoot at the truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted October 8, 2000 Author Share Posted October 8, 2000 David, "...Antitank guns are not the best way to kill soft-skin vehicles..." Yes, in game terms it's a waste of resources... But if an antitank gun menaged to hit an AP round in the front of a Jeep, the AP shoot will exit in it's rear... Cav Gunner, "...unarmored targets are just that, unarmored, the probability that a direct hit will take out the vehicle is virtually certain..." hmmm... yes, but unarmored targets have a hit probability, (specially ones with 120 sillhouette ), why is not there ? Armored ones got this statistic. "trucks and jeeps are usually taken out by MG or cannon fire long before they get in range of the launcher" Yes... but the MG must be an HMG and the cannon must be using an HE round, nathing new in these (meybe you are lucky and I'm unlucky). But, I must advice you that in a PBEM to give away your position to the enemy because of a Jeep or a Truck it isn't a good tactic. Thermopylae, "...mounted a full company in halftracks...half of my tracks were dead..." I'm confused, were they Trucks or HT ? If they were HT the post is about unarmored vehicles. Pvt. Ryan, "... I have nothing to add because I have never seen a truck in a PBEM..." Yes but for sure you sow a Jeep ?... If not you are lucky guy, because in my 20 pbems history some times I have found players that love the JeepMG+Bazooka combination Thanks for your postes, but I would like to remind that the 2nd question is only about bazookas and Shrecks and not all AT wepons. João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 10-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 Very often an AT class weapon will actually pass thru a softskin without doing major damage take for example Heat rounds which have a nosecap that comes off on impact, setting the shaped charge off, very often when hitting a soft target, the cap doesn't come off, allowing the heat round to pass through the target leaving only a small hole, I've done that one IRL so I know it happens. Oh and Tanaka, no offense but the armor thickness of an M3 HT doesn't exactly qualify it as an armored vehicle, at least not to anything bigger than .30 cal ------------------ Pzvg "Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: Oh and Tanaka, no offense but the armor thickness of an M3 HT doesn't exactly qualify it as an armored vehicle, at least not to anything bigger than .30 cal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But CM treats M3 HTs as armoured vehicles to calculate hit probabilities, which is Tanaka's complain about unarmored vehicles. Ariel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted October 8, 2000 Author Share Posted October 8, 2000 pzvg, "...Very often ...I know it happens." 1st you said that is often then in the end you sey that it happens. So it's a common thing or it's 1 in 100 thing ? Don't need to answer that... The Potuguese in Angola colonial war used SuperBazookas against human targets in bushes and the results didn't dignify the human race. The guerrilla used RPG-7... in my family I have from a very reliabel sorce that the result of a RPG-7 rocket in a Mercedes Truck is a hell of flames, the kind that you will never forget... hmmm... Anyway in the test that I did,and so far I can remember in my PBEM experience , never sow the projectile of shreck actually hit unarmored targets. Yes I sow them disabel the target, but they all blast in the grond near the target. "...no offense but the armor thickness of an M3 HT doesn't exactly qualify it as an armored vehicle..." Make Ariel words my words (thanks Ariel) Thanks for your answer, João Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 Well, seeing as humor is not a required trait of grogs, I'll stick to subject matter, I have no idea why BTS qualifies HT's as armored, but hey, it's their game, right? (and a nice one too) As for why they didn't code for trucks and the like, in all probability because any weapon larger than a .22 rimfire has the potential to kill/disable an unarmored vehicle, so did we really need to see a 100% kill probability above it? And Tanaka, I did say capped rounds, which AFAIK, leaves out the RPG, try it with a M72 LAW, outside of the Hollywood version the results are rather disappointing. And let's not get into the inhumanity of war, please, been there done that, agree 100% but it's always gonna be that way, it's built into the concept. ------------------ Pzvg "Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: 1) We get on armored targets the hit chance and the kill probability, on infantry targets the exposure, why we don't get information on anarmored targets?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is because CM treats AP and HE rounds differently. Against armored targets, CM tracks the trajectory of the shot precisely to the part of the target struck. This is because the depth of armor protection can vary considerably from area to area of the target and also the angle struck can vary and is of considerable importance. HE rounds, on the other hand, have a blast radius. All that is necessary is for the round to strike so that the target is covered by any part of the blast radius. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2)I've noticed, after a few testes, that bazookas and Shrecks are very poor weapons to use against anarmored targets ( see note in the end ). This is because they seem to fire to this kind of targets as they were infantry ( using the blast to kill and not the penetration factor as they should ). We all know the efect of a bazooka on a pick-up or any other kind of modern jeep used in 3rd world country wars, so why this situation on CM ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This because Bazookas (and other hollow charge weapons) occupy a somewhat anomalous position in CM. Against hard targets they function as AP weapons. Against soft targets they function as HE weapons. This may not be in all cases (such as you mention in regard to trucks and jeeps) entirely realistic, but is a simplification that is close enough to be workable for the present. One of the reasons Bazookas, etc. work poorly against soft targets is because their blast strength is so small (you can confirm this in the unit info window). Nevertheless, I have used them effectively against dug-in infantry. Though not very effective at causing casualties, it is very persuasive at getting them to abandon their positions. The foregoing is just my best guess on the situation and does not represent anything official. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: As for why they didn't code for trucks and the like, in all probability because any weapon larger than a .22 rimfire has the potential to kill/disable an unarmored vehicle, so did we really need to see a 100% kill probability above it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Tanaka, I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. Firstly, when firing at unarmoured targets you have no idea what the probability of a hit is because, I gather, the chance to kill is dependant on the blast radius of your HE ordnance. If that's the case then I can tell you those armoured truck mounted AA guns are almost IMPOSSIBLE to kill. I'm currently playing a game where I have fired literally (& I'm not joking here) over twenty 75 mm rounds & over 30 37 mm rounds at this one Flak truck and it never dies!!! All you see each turn are explosions underneath it, behind it, in front of it every bloody where to no avail. Every turn this truck is targetted at around 550 to 650 metres away by 2 Stuarts & a 75mm Sherman & despite explosions going off all around this moving monstosity it never dies. This has been going on for over 10 turns now & I'm getting sick of it. Oh by the way, it has also been targeted by 3 60 mm mortars to no avail & I forgor to mention that over this 10 turn period it has continually been fired on by a 50 cal. MG from a Halftack & STILL NOTHING! It's like the Flak gun from hell. So, in conclusion I agree with Tanaka that unarmoured vehicles seem impossible to kill unless you can get up very close with them with infantry & then, no problems. However in my game this AA gun just stands off at over 500 metres & is basically invulnerable to all sorts of SH*T going its way including 50 cal., 75 mm & 37 mm fire. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted October 8, 2000 Author Share Posted October 8, 2000 pzvg, "...As for why they didn't code for trucks and the like, in all probability because any weapon larger than a .22 rimfire has the potential to kill/disable an unarmored vehicle, so did we really need to see a 100% kill probability above it?..." Yes, you are right, but currently in CM there is a weopon type (hollow charge weapons) that is included in a more then .22 rimfire group that is very unefective against unarmored targets, it trys to kill the truck, jeep, SdKfz, boat ... with the blast, and as you can guess it is very anoying to repeatadly miss a jeep at 9 m because the guy that is using it, is aiming to the ground Yes you are right RPG-7 is rocket and it is different from hollow charge... but the result it is near the same, at least if the hollow charge projectile finds more then one plate in it's way ( like the engine ). Michael, 1)"..." Yes, but you see that an Infantry firing to an Infantry or a tank firing an HE round to Infantry it still shows some statistics. 2) "..." All that you said sounds reasonable to me. The only thing that I still ask is, when an AT weapon fires, way didn't BTS put unarmored vehicles in the armored class,for example with 2 mm armor ? When HE/Infantry fires they would do as it is. Ok, I guess that is due to CPU limitations, but I'm one of those guys that prefers realaty to graphics. Thanks you two for your answers. now I would think that some oficial (BTS) enlighten would be nice. PS-Jim R... A thing like that happened to me too, thanks for your support in this one. João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 10-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted October 8, 2000 Share Posted October 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Red Devils wrote: > Uhh,huh-huh-huh...he said "testes." Oh no, what are we going to do now? – Run around screaming "HE SAID TESTES!!"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is my first choice. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just ignore me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is my second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted October 9, 2000 Author Share Posted October 9, 2000 Bump... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted October 9, 2000 Author Share Posted October 9, 2000 bump... this must be a bumpy topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted October 10, 2000 Author Share Posted October 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: I would think that some oficial (BTS) enlighten would be nice. João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 10-08-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bump bumpy bump bumpy bump... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 hmmm... I guess BTS can't answer to this one in a public forum... thanks anyway. João Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Keep trying Tanaka, if you're persistant you never know your luck. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Killing trucks In a historical scenario I've been working on for a while now, there are several trucks on a flat map. Once the lead start flying, they retreat to the rear map edge but not off the map. Then when most other unit's been taken out, these trucks get targeted by tanks at about 800m range. The tanks usually have to fire several 75mm HE on each stationary truck to knock it out. The trucks also seem to be priority targets over closer by infantry... As for the blast from Bazookas, I think it should be (is?) comparable to a hand grenade. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts