Guest ChrisC1009 Posted December 4, 1999 Share Posted December 4, 1999 I've noticed several times that my armor is able to shoot while on the move. While this is realistic for M1 Abrams, I'm not sure it's realistic for Shermans and Hellcats. Fionn or anyone care to comment? Thanks, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted December 4, 1999 Share Posted December 4, 1999 I got knocked out by a veteran Sherman crew that was driving once but I don't think it's so unrealistic considering they didn't fast move. I bet you will get a bunch of stats from someone on this matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisC1009 Posted December 4, 1999 Share Posted December 4, 1999 Hey Howard. What got me noticing it was when my Hellcat moving "fast" fired at the Tiger in the Last Defense scenario. It reminded me of an M1A1 firing on the move, hence my reference to that tank. It seemed odd to me for a WWII tank to do that. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted December 4, 1999 Share Posted December 4, 1999 Almost all US tanks, 44 onwards, had gyro-stabilized guns. Now obviously this wasn't done to the level of the M1, but it did give it a big advantage. The problem was that most crews weren't trained to use it, especially late in the war when tank crew members became scarce. In fact towards the end of the war many tank units omitted the bow mg gunner because of this shortage. Many crews disconnected the system. Some, uninformed IMO, critics have used this as evidence that the system didn't work. Actually it was due to this lack of training, and the fact that it caused the gun to move violently when the tank was in motion. I believe it was stabilized along the verticle plane, the crew still had to aim on the horizontal plane. With a well trained crew that was ALSO trained in it's use, it was a very valuable attribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 4, 1999 Share Posted December 4, 1999 Shooting on the move was possible but accuracy was very low in WW2 (generally speaking). However just like in real life tanks in CM can shoot on the move. Their chances of getting a hit are lower but sometimes they just go for it So shooting on the move is realistic for ANY tank BUT what should be done is to reduce the rate of fire and accuracy of fire (both of which are done in CM). ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 5, 1999 Share Posted December 5, 1999 During the invasion of France, Rommel gave standing orders for Panzers to shoot on the move unless they really needed to shoot accurately. I guess it's a combination of speed and terrain, but I'd say that a tank doing 15mph on a fully paved flat road would have a decent chance at a shot. Late German tanks (Panthers amongst others) also had vertical stabilisation to a point, but modern 2-mile kills at 40mph is probably beyond them... DWH Manic Moran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted December 6, 1999 Share Posted December 6, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>During the invasion of France, Rommel gave standing orders for Panzers to shoot on the move unless they really needed to shoot accurately.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was his standard orders in the desert as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rommel Posted December 6, 1999 Share Posted December 6, 1999 yes but in last defense, i positioned my tiger on the upper right hand side, behind the treeline and my stug little farther down the main road, when the m10's appeared (playing hotseat) my opponent had them charge down the road, 1 m10 took standing shots at the stug knocking it out, but the 2 very fast moving m10's took 2 shots at the tiger (like at 700m) hit it both times (rocochet) and on the next hit it once, missed it once, knocking it out. So out of 4 fast moving shots at long distance, 3 hit. just think maybe decrease the accuracy while moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 7, 1999 Share Posted December 7, 1999 I take your point, but I can't help but think the following...Let me know if the logic is flawed, will you? IIRC, the TDs that turn up were M-18 Hellcats, no? These were bloody fast machines, and to be fast they must have good suspension. So, these to TDs are driving down the road, which is already pretty flat, and the suspension should take out a large portion of the rest of the movement. Then we have the fact that a Tiger is a pretty damned big target anyway, and the Gunner's Optics presumably have some form of magnification so that the target looks even bigger. If all the above is held to be true, would it be unreasonable to expect a fair chance at a hit? Of course, if he was off-road, I withdraw all statements! DWH Manic Moran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bry Barnard Posted March 29, 2001 Share Posted March 29, 2001 I've just done a search on the forum for tanks firing-on-the-move and this seemed a good post to talk about this. I've noticed that tanks firing on the move seem to have a GREATER chance of hitting than tanks firing stationary. I have some examples to add to those discussed above: a) Tiger I hosted by Wittman himself stationary targeting a Sherman 75mm coming out of some scattered trees 300m away. Wittman fires and misses, fires again and misses and by this time the Sherman has emerged from the trees, rotated it's turret 60 degrees, and whilst still moving fires and totally destroys Michael! Two things here - Tiger I with an Elite crew firing twice at that range I doubt should have missed and point two "How come a 75mm on a Sherman can take out a Tiger I on the front anyway?" Two PzIVHs targeting a 75mm Sherman emerging side on from a Bocage hedge at 100m range. It's the end of a turn and a LOS check reveals that both MkIVs have a 98% chance of hit. What happens? Both MkIVs fire - both miss and the Sherman emerges from the Bocage to go "Oh look, two MkIVs, lets rotate the turret and bang, bang there's two brewed up MkIVs!!" c) Michael Wittman and his mate in another Tiger I are stationary outside Villers awaiting some targets when out from the village appears a Cromwell approaching slowly side-on. Michael and his mate feach fire twice at a range of 200m and, yep, you guessed it, they miss. Cromwell fires back, once on each Tiger, hits each with a single shot and brews each Tiger, this whilst still moving. This leads me to conclude that CM is biased towards tanks firing on the move. Tanks firing from stationary, even with Elite crews, just won't hit as often as a moving tank will. Can we have a bug report raised on this please CM? Ta, Bry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 29, 2001 Share Posted March 29, 2001 Originally posted by Bry Barnard: I've just done a search on the forum for tanks firing-on-the-move and this seemed a good post to talk about this. I've noticed that tanks firing on the move seem to have a GREATER chance of hitting than tanks firing stationary. I have some examples to add to those discussed above: a) Tiger I hosted by Wittman himself stationary targeting a Sherman 75mm coming out of some scattered trees 300m away. Wittman fires and misses, fires again and misses and by this time the Sherman has emerged from the trees, rotated it's turret 60 degrees, and whilst still moving fires and totally destroys Michael! Two things here - Tiger I with an Elite crew firing twice at that range I doubt should have missed and point two "How come a 75mm on a Sherman can take out a Tiger I on the front anyway?" Two PzIVHs targeting a 75mm Sherman emerging side on from a Bocage hedge at 100m range. It's the end of a turn and a LOS check reveals that both MkIVs have a 98% chance of hit. What happens? Both MkIVs fire - both miss and the Sherman emerges from the Bocage to go "Oh look, two MkIVs, lets rotate the turret and bang, bang there's two brewed up MkIVs!!" c) Michael Wittman and his mate in another Tiger I are stationary outside Villers awaiting some targets when out from the village appears a Cromwell approaching slowly side-on. Michael and his mate feach fire twice at a range of 200m and, yep, you guessed it, they miss. Cromwell fires back, once on each Tiger, hits each with a single shot and brews each Tiger, this whilst still moving. This leads me to conclude that CM is biased towards tanks firing on the move. Tanks firing from stationary, even with Elite crews, just won't hit as often as a moving tank will. Can we have a bug report raised on this please CM? Ta, Bry This is an interesting observation. Allied tanks with gyro stabilizers have a fire and the move targeting bonus, if that bonus is greater than the negative modifier for the fact that the tank is moving would mean the the gyrostabilizer is generating a most likely and more positive chance to hit than if the tank was not moveing. I Doubt that this is the case but I have found that aLLied tanks with gyrostabilllized guns are very accurate while shooting on the move. Interesting observation and comment. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted March 29, 2001 Share Posted March 29, 2001 The above postings seem to concur with my earlier sporadic observations. All historical and scientific articles I've read on the subject says something completely different. - The only instance I've read about where tankers voluntarily fired the main gun when moving at high speed was in some Egypt-Israeli war, where the Israelis had to get through a pass that was covered by Egypt ATGs and field guns in camouflaged positions on the sides, and to get through fast. The Israelis knew the guns were there, but not any exact location. What they did was to go through at full speed with all hatches open, while firing HE blind at the sides. - There was also a posting on this BBS with an interview of a US WW2 tanker. He said that firing AP on the move was a no-no, HE could be fired at some effect (like catching part of a spread infantry platoon within the blast radius). - Tests caried out with Cheftains in 1973 proved that trying to hit a tank sized target while moving was a waste of ammo. I don't think the Cheftain stabiliser is that much worse than the ones used in Shermans 30 years earlier... (This test was carried out in Germany by the British army to prove that turreted tanks were better than tanks without turrets (read; the S-tank). They failed, and got to the conclusion that they were "unable to prove that the S-tank can't fire on the move".) - The gyrostabiliser (and all later stabiliser, up to the very latest generation) was designed with the intent to reduce the time needed to adjust the aim after stopping to shoot. (The effect being like going from three seconds to two.) The downside was an increase in reload time, since reloading was done while moving and the breech could swing wildly up and down, breaking the arm of some loaders... There's supposed to have been a reduction in hit probability when firing on the move from version 1.10 on, but I don't know how much it's been reduced or what the hit rates are now. Another problem is that CMBO doesn't exactly model the stop-while-shooting tactic used by all sides in WW2, so I guess that the relatively high hit probability when moving could be taken as a simplified representation of this shoot and scoot. Until the "Hunt" command means "move at full speed while reloading and acuire target, take rough aim, stop, adjust aim, fire, go full speed, reload, ..." (which it won't until CMII, at best) I could live with; Hunt = Move continously at half speed, shoot with good accuracy at opportunity targets. Increased reload time and reduced effect of adjusted fire. Fast = Move at full speed, never fire AP, (maybe fire HE or smoke, but only at area targets and with lousy accuracy). Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 2001 Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Another problem is that CMBO doesn't exactly model the stop-while-shooting tactic used by all sides in WW2, so I guess that the relatively high hit probability when moving could be taken as a simplified representation of this shoot and scoot. Until the "Hunt" command means "move at full speed while reloading and acuire target, take rough aim, stop, adjust aim, fire, go full speed, reload, ..." (which it won't until CMII, at best) I could live with; Hunt = Move continously at half speed, shoot with good accuracy at opportunity targets. Increased reload time and reduced effect of adjusted fire. Fast = Move at full speed, never fire AP, (maybe fire HE or smoke, but only at area targets and with lousy accuracy). Cheers Olle But don't forget the new armored movement command for CM2 -- Ramming Speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted April 2, 2001 Share Posted April 2, 2001 Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: ... But don't forget the new armored movement command for CM2 -- Ramming Speed.As I've understood it every speed is ramming speed, provided the waypoints are well placed... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted July 23, 2001 Share Posted July 23, 2001 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ChrisC1009: I've noticed several times that my armor is able to shoot while on the move. While this is realistic for M1 Abrams, I'm not sure it's realistic for Shermans and Hellcats. Fionn or anyone care to comment? Thanks, Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL..Oyyyy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olandt Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 Anyone know if terrain has an impact when firing on the move. Firing while moving on pavement is one thing, while driving on a rutted pothole filled road another, and over uneven open terrain something completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FFE Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olandt: Anyone know if terrain has an impact when firing on the move.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aye it does, but only to allow time for the tank barrel to position itself. A tank moving along a bumpy ridge (road, elevation change, whatever) causes the barrel to bob up and down like a yo-yo while it tries to line up the target. Once (and if) the barrel gets situated, the tank will fire off a round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 This has actually been discussed in the past, and the holes in the evidence presented is that you are taking a very few instances with lots of uncontrolled variables. Tigers can and are killed by Shermans, especially at close range. US tank can and did both fire on the move, and use the gyros to aim, rush out, stop, and have the gun still aligned. I think this topic would need 1) a substantial body of evidence on how US gyros worked 2) better firing range tests using a generic battlefield that isolated your variables Two down points of this is few people want to do this much work, even though it is the best way to get peoples attention, and as soon as you bring up this subject the trolls will start crawling out of the marsh looking to derail intellectual discussion of these issues. I can best say that the game works as it should unless we come up with more than a few isolated cases or some very faulty assumptions to make us think otherwise/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 What I find frustrating is watching a stationary tank fire round after round just behind a target moving laterally. I find myself shaking the screen, screaming something like "lead him! Lead him! Haven't you ever been duck shooting you stupid dumb pixelized gunner!" I find that helps. He still misses, but I feel better. Sometimes. JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 The Allied Hellcat can fire on the FAST move (top speed 55 MPH!!!) (in the game of course) while flying across open ground and it is IMHO unsually accurate on the fast move for a tank moving and firing in CMBO. I know they won't fix this for CMBO but I hope that Steve and Charles will at least look at this "fire on the FAST" issue for CMBB. -tom w And again I will add to this thread with this insightful post from another similiar thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019743&p=1 Stephen Smith Member Member # 567 posted 06-20-2001 10:54 AM As a real-world comparison- modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but 'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean driving cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down motion, nor driving very fast. I don't believe it would be possible to fire modern M1A1s while 'on the move' in any but these very limited circumstances (i.e. relatively flat terrain, relatively low speed), for two reasons 1) it would be hard to keep the cross hairs on the target, and 2) it would be hard for the crew to keep themselves still enough to even look through the optics well enough to aim (the gunner would be thrown around the inside of the vehicle too much). And unless 1940's technology was much better than 1990's technology, I suspect the ability to fire on the move under any but very rare circumstances, even with a highly trained crew and a gyrostabilizer, is grossly overrated. And- I just read a book on Kursk which quoted a german gunner as saying the ideal range for engagements was about 800 meters. So what ranges should we expect in CM2? I would think about the same as in CMBO. While the optics and penetration of main guns may have allowed extremely high ranges (2000, 3000 meters in incredibly rare, extreme cases), I suspect that due to real-world terrain, actual engagements were probably conducted, 95% of the time, 0-1000 meters or so. Steve [ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts