Tank-issues

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nick Carter:

The most recent "Tales of the Gun" show on History Channel mentioned that BAR rifles were almost exclusively armed with AP bullets. The footage of the BAR chewing apart concrete building walls was pretty amazing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't quote any resources off the cuff, but that just plain SOUNDS inaccurate. The BAR was originally designed in WWI as a squad automatic (aka light MG) to kill infantry using ball ammo. I won't say that AP was never used in BARs (since it obviously could be), but I seriously doubt it was standard procedure, since that's not what they were made to do.

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[danielh]

Just a tiny little question how can i figure out what version of CM i have on my drive (Official CD-Release)?

To the Halftrack thing: Of course an oversized Rifle with AP or a thrown handgrenade or riflegrenade killed a halftrack, but NOT a 7.9 mm MG from around 400 - 200 m, as was the case with my Tigers against american halftracks. I was keen to wreck them to havoc but not by MG-Fire of course !

The M5 killing the Jagdpanther, good hunting tactics must be awarded !!

Greets

Daniel

[Sten]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by danielh:

Just a tiny little question how can i figure out what version of CM i have on my drive (Official CD-Release)?

To the Halftrack thing: Of course an oversized Rifle with AP or a thrown handgrenade or riflegrenade killed a halftrack, but NOT a 7.9 mm MG from around 400 - 200 m, as was the case with my Tigers against american halftracks. I was keen to wreck them to havoc but not by MG-Fire of course !

The M5 killing the Jagdpanther, good hunting tactics must be awarded !!

Greets

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look in the bottom right corner of the main screen. The version number is there.

Sten

------------------

Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll.

[Silencer]

Ari,

version 1.01. (1.02 is not for the full, waiting for the 1.03)

no, optics are not fully in! Charles needs to clearify on this.

if you doubt, run some tests,

sherman'75 versus Nashorn, on a flat 1900m apart. Do it 30 times en count the results.

No advantage at the german side, even at this extreme range. And Nashorns are known (especially at the east front), to use the longest range possible for their own survival.

DanE,

"Was the crew "Shocked"? If so, then there is a delay in any action performed by that tank."

Nope, when the tank was hit (shell broke up or something none damaging)

It just buttoned up and forgot the enemy tank, pure coz that buttoned tanks have less spotting abillity.

Sure this would be the case when the other tank wasn't spotted before, but my tank had already fired 4 rounds!!!

Happens a lot at greater ranges. (1800+)

Cardinal Fang,

yup, i know, i read those when they where posted, even on the old board. I've been a reader on this board for more then a year now.

just to clearify, the thing about optics has never been truely explained yet, what the advantages are for what vehicle and why.

I would like to see an table or something, I just like numbers

(I know as for the tiger1, it had the most accurate gun af all German tanks (even better then tiger 2)

S.

[danielh]

Thanks a lot Sten (What's with my LOS ???!!)

I did now several tests, the most enlightning:

1 M5 regular, 1 PzIVH regular 305 m apart against each other unbuttoned both about 10 degrees off axis (have to turn turret), plain ground, clear, dry

no moving of tanks.

I did 20 tests (saved the game):

The results:

70 % Killratio for Pz IV

70 % missed first shots of Pz IV (whereas 6 short, 1 wide), M5 20 %

100 % First shots by Pz IV

What do we learn ?

Good reaction by germans, but bad acuraccy, strange isn't it ????!!

-> Spoiled potential of gun when not met by armor -> M4 is bumped up in it's potential

(Will do the test with an M4 right now...)

1 M4A3 regular vs. 1 PzIVH regular, rest same as above.

Victory: 7 M4 35 %, 6 30 % Pz IV (Very often both hit each other so victor was then when one survived)

Kills: 14 M4, 13 Pz IV (7 both were killed)

First Shots: 14 M4 70 %, 6 Pz IV (Due to buttoned M4 crews by MG fire)

Missed firsts: 5 Pz IV 25 %, 6 30 % M4

Now with elite Pz IVH against M4A3 regular:

Victory: 10 50 % Pz IV, 6 30 % M4

Kills: 14 Pz IV, 10 M4 ( 4 both were killed)

First shot: 12 M4, 9 Pz IV

Missed first: 6 M4 30 % , 3 15 % Pz IV

One can notice the big difference first in missed first hits against the M5 (Size ?), and the quite big impact of an elite crew (good).

The results over all seem quite OK, but it's achieved by sometimes strange sideffects like the 70 % misses (most of them short btw) against the M5 whereas only 25 % against the M4. As elite the PzIV several times buttoned the M4-crew to disable him inspite to the regular.

I also found, that adding a scattered tree section which has no visual effect on the LOS color does indeed have an impact on time needed for recognition

What do we learn about all this ? Over the long run things seem to lead to correct performances in a fight, but there can be odd behaviour at the one instance. This might have impact on deployment of "micro" tactics (That tank at 100 m missed the fully stopped enemy tank, and smashed my defence therefore in that battle...). 70 % missed first shots at 300 m are odd because one can encounter it quite often, but overall the result will be correct. The impact on specific tactics may be there and hinder their deployment as would in the real world for a specific situation, over the long run they will work about appropriate however.

Fascinating !!

Greets

Daniel

[This message has been edited by danielh (edited 07-19-2000).]

[Sten]

Danielh,

very interesting data! Thank you very much.

This kind of test has been done before, but not recently.

I'll discuss this with Charles when he comes back and we'll see if he thinks anything should be changed.

Sten

------------------

Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll.

[Cardinal Fang]

Sniper sez

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cardinal Fang,

yup, i know, i read those when they where posted, even on the old board. I've been a reader on this board for more then a year now.

just to clearify, the thing about optics has never been truely explained yet, what the advantages are for what vehicle and why.

I would like to see an table or something, I just like numbers

(I know as for the tiger1, it had the most accurate gun af all German tanks (even better then tiger 2)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

About Optics being explained BTS sez in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001449.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We really didn't do much with aiming devices. There is no data that we could find that would allow us to model the differences accurately. In general, at this point in the war, the German and Western Allied vehicles were on a par for the most part. Sure, some vehicles had better visibility/optics than others, but we really felt it was better to not just start making this stuff up because that is the ONLY thing we could do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the same thread Fionn sez

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the point is being made that:

a) given equal training US crews could gun almost as well as the Germans and

the difference is almost impossible to quantify

SO

c) since it was a small difference and any quantification would have been complete guesswork it was left out.

I can tell you lots of cases where experienced US tankers outshot green German tankers and for the main part the difference between two crews in tanks is due to :

a) the experience of the crew

the characteristics of the tank (armour and gun).

BTW since its a tank simulator it has to pay homage to the differences in gunsight. CM isnt a tank simulator so doesn't.

I was a lead tester on that game you are talking about and a lot of discussion went into the scopes there when we first got the alphas over a year ago now.

I think CM's decision is right since a 10% or more German aiming advantage would be hard to justify in many cases. (they used complicated sights).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn also sez

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Coincidence rangefinders are very difficult to operate and were prone to damage. if damaged the Germans had to rely on a secondary sight which was WORSE then the rugged US primary sight.

Kills beyoned 1 km were RARE. I know some of you ahve read about them in books and presume they are common but they aren't. Sub-1km I would say US sights are quite adequate.

Lastly but not leastly go check out the rangefinders in German tanks and US and British tanks for yourself. I've sat in German, US and British WW2 tanks and checked out the rangefinders and quite honestly I didn't find anything uber-amazing about the German rangefinders. Certainly they allowed a more accurate shot once properly zoned in BUT they took longer to zero in on the enemy's range (which is why Wittmann's gunner Bobby Wol (sic) standardised his rangefinder to 800 metres and did aiming by eye and NOT using the rangefinder... In FACT I've jsut shown why SOME crews found them so complicated to use that they did NOT use them ... how's that for a crappy addendum to a rangefinder.. So slow and difficult to use that crews simply left it be )

Again, I think they were close enough in performace to US sights at normal ranges that we can simply agree they were equivalent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn also sez (He can be wordy )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For long-distance shooting German optics were better BUT the peculiarities of German turret traverse system design and the length of time they had to callibrate their coincidence rangefinders all played HUGELY important factors which you're forgetting.

At short distance most German crews admit to NOT USING their coincidence rangefinder but simply setting them to a set distance and estimating by sight how much farther or closer the enemy tanks were.

I say that most German tank crews admit to NOT USING THE RANGEFINDER once targets were within 800 metres. Go read your reports on Bobby Woll in which it is clearly stated that this was his method of aiming.

Combat Reports and personal reminisces are notoriously skewed to the spectacular. E.g The record the 1 hit at 2 km but forget the 5 misses at 300 metres...

When attempting to scientifically establish the accuracy of a gun/sight complex (since the sight CANNOT be viewed as separate from the gun in reality) one SHOULD give laboratory results FAR more weight than crew reports (which are usually inherently flawed).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn also sez more good stuff like having to model all the different German sights since they were not all of equal quality but I'm tired of cutting and pasting and I want to play CM!

And yes I know the Fionn is not BTS but he did seem to have a lot of input and I did put BTS's quote first.

In regard to tables BTS sez in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We don't use tables. We use a far more sophisticated series of equations for everything related to tank gunnery in CM. And yes, we model the effects of movement on the part of gunner and target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That seems pretty clear about the sights to me. What more are you looking for?

I hope this helps (I really hope that the quotes work!),

Cardinal Fang

Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition!

[howardb]

Been watching this very interesting thread and I think it's good that we got people with good suggestions on how to make the best wargame ever even better. We all know Steve&Charles are reading this thread and we also know they'll keep on tweaking the game. Just got the game myself and I must say it's even better than I had imagined but there are small annoying problems in there. I bet BTS is appreciating constructive critism.

[Silencer]

Cardinal,

yes, Fionn is a crack when explaining the details.

I was looking for data, how all these things where calculated in CM. And the thing I really wanted to know is how the long range duals are modelled +1500m, where the optics DID play a role. They don't happen often, but they do.

Another thing I noticed, it seems to be impossible to spot each other's tanks (unbuttoned) over 2000m, on a flat paved terrain (testbed). Strange...

Just placed 2 tanks 2200m from each other and they will not spot the other.

S.

S.

[tss]

KMHPaladin wrote:

Jeff - come on over to the European Air War forum at Combatsim.com - we speak "Germglish" all the time!

Hey, did you know dat dere ist a konfenient filter dat automatically transforms vritten Englisch into "Germglisch". It ist called, not quite surprisingktly: "kraut". Dese lines vere passed drough it, undt you kan see ze results.

- Tommi

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by danielh:

- The armor: The Panther in CM is rated with 100 mm frontal turret armor. This value is only the half truth, because the gun manteling had another 110 mm. The same for the Tiger, which also had a 100 mm mantlet in addition to the 100 mm.

The infantry-action is just unbelievable good !!

Greets

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at the front of the Panther you’ll see misshapen triangles on either side of the mantlet, those are the turret fronts. There is no extra armour sitting behind the mantlet armour except for the gun shield which covers some of the area behind the mantlet. This gun shield is generally of 10 to 20mm in thickness and is of very poor armour quality since its meant to serve as a guide for the elevation/depression of the gun so the bloody thing does not topple out. Heh what a picture.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 07-20-2000).]

[danielh]

Tank-story by Hans Ulrich Rudel (From "Stuka Pilot" Story took place early 1944

"I am out with the anti-tank flight S and SW of Alexandrija; after firing off all our ammunition we are homeward bound for Kirowograd to refuel and remunition for another sortie. We are skimming the almost level plain at a low altitude half way to Kirowograd and i am just above a dense hedgerow. Behind it twelve tanks are on the move. I recognize them instantly: all T 34s heading N. In a twinkling i have climbed and circled round the quarry. Where on earth have they come from ? (Far behind the frontline) They are Soviets beyond all doubt. Not one of us has a round of ammunition left. We must therefore let them rumble on. Who knows where they will get to be the time we can return with fresh ammunition and attack them.

The T 34 pay no attention to us and proceed on their way behind the hedge. Further North i see something else moving on the ground. We fly over at low level and recognize German comrades with type IV tanks. They gaze up at us from their tanks, thinking of anything else but the nearness of an enemy and a possible skirmish. Both lots of tanks are travelling towards each other separated only by this tall line of bushes. Neither can see the other because the Soviets are moving in sunken ground below a railway embarkment. I fire red Vereys, wave and drop a message container in which i inform my tank colleagues who and what are coming in their direction two miles away, assuming the both keep to the same course. By dipping my aircraft towards the spot where the T 34s are travelling at the moment i tip them off to the nearness of the enemy. Both parties drive steadily on. Circling low we watch for what is going to happen. Our tanks halt at a point where there is a gap of a few yards in the hedge. At any minute now they may both be suddenly surprised by the sight of the other at point blank range. I wait tensly for the second when both will get the shock. The Russians have closed down their turret-tops; perhaps they suspect something from our astonishing manouvres. They are still rolling in the same direction, travelling fast. The lateral distance separating the two parties is not more than fifteen or twenty yards. Now !

The russians in the sunken ground have reached the gap and see the enemy in front of them on the other side of the hedge. It takes exactly two seconds for the first IV tank to set his opposite number on fire at range of twenty yards; bits and pieces pepper the air. In another few seconds -- up till then i have not seen a shot fired from the rest of the T 34s -- six russian tanks are ablaze. The impression is that they have been taken completely by suprise and have not yet grasped what is happening even now. Some T 34s move in closer under cover of the hedge, the rest try to escape over the railway embarkment. They are immediately picked off by the german tanks which have meanwhile got a field of fire through the gap. The whole engagment lasts one minute. It is in its way unique. Without loss to ourselves every one of the T 34s have been destroyed."

Interesting about this encounter to me is the time it needed for the first Pz IV to open fire 2 seconds from the appearance of the enemy tanks in sight and opening fire and few seconds for the others to hit another 5.

In an ambushposition or when suspecting the enemy at a certain point reactiontime is very short indeed.

Would like to see that in CM too !!

In CM tests clearly revealed that even recon needs up atleast 5 seconds and another 5 - 6 seconds even when turret must be moved only a little bit 1 - 5 degrees.

Greets

Daniel

[Mark IV]

GREAT post- thanks.

Long time since I read that and it's a treat here at work- great mind picture.

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 07-20-2000).]