What does "Gun Damaged" really mean?

[Henri]

In one scenario, I had 3 tank main guns taken out by enemy artillery

In all 3 cases, the MG could still fire. Now this is not negligible: an armored machinegun is still a dangerous weapon, much more so than a stationary machinegun, because it can move fast and is impervious to everything by AP hits and lucky artillery top hits.

I DO believe however that information concerning the state of the gun should not be given to the enemy: I like to use tanks with disabled main guns to run around the flanks of the enemy hoping to get slow-rotating AT guns from the side or rear, and lemme tell ya if the enemy didn't know whether or not that tank had a functioning main gun, he might get very nervous ...

Henri

[jshandorf]

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

Play as the Allies and you'll hardly have to worry about "gun damage". Shots that would only "gund damage" the Panther will kill the Sherman.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I wonder... Do gun damages actually penetrate the front armor?? If so then I can understand the gun being damaged, but if THAT is true then I would see my Panthers getting knocked alot more by the Allies' armor, and that is just not the case.

If gun damages DON'T penetrate the front armor then that WOULD explain why German tanks take more Gun Damage hits, since obviously German tanks can withstand front turret hits from Ally armor in general. This in turn would increase the chance for gun damage hits, but that doesn't make sense for the reasons I pointed out above... A gun damage hit, sans the actual barrel being hit, would require a armor penetration which doesn't seem to be the case.

Arrrg... All too confusing....

Jeff

[jshandorf]

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

In one scenario, I had 3 tank main guns taken out by enemy artillery

In all 3 cases, the MG could still fire. Now this is not negligible: an armored machinegun is still a dangerous weapon, much more so than a stationary machinegun, because it can move fast and is impervious to everything by AP hits and lucky artillery top hits.

I DO believe however that information concerning the state of the gun should not be given to the enemy: I like to use tanks with disabled main guns to run around the flanks of the enemy hoping to get slow-rotating AT guns from the side or rear, and lemme tell ya if the enemy didn't know whether or not that tank had a functioning main gun, he might get very nervous ...

Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the MG you saw firing was the Bow MG. As far as I know when the Main Gun is damaged the Coax MG is inoperable, which I don't agree with, but that is another thing all together.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

[CavScout]

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

So I wonder... Do gun damages actually penetrate the front armor?? If so then I can understand the gun being damaged, but if THAT is true then I would see my Panthers getting knocked alot more by the Allies' armor, and that is just not the case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would venture to say that they are not penetrating the front armor. It seems it would be damage to the gun tube itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If gun damages DON'T penetrate the front armor then that WOULD explain why German tanks take more Gun Damage hits, since obviously German tanks can withstand front turret hits from Ally armor in general. This in turn would increase the chance for gun damage hits, but that doesn't make sense for the reasons I pointed out above... A gun damage hit, sans the actual barrel being hit, would require a armor penetration which doesn't seem to be the case.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think it would have to be related to gun tube damage simply by the number of "gun damage" recieved by near hits [how is a miss a "near miss"? Didn't it almost miss and hence it is a hit?] with arty.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-11-2000).]

[Panzer Man]

It really means someone put a Banana in the Muzzle..You need the Banana removal squad to remedy that..lol

[jshandorf]

Cav,

I totally agree with the barrel being hit, but the reasons given out by BTS and others refering to Gun Damage have also stated things like Optics, Gears, etc... which would all be internal to the tank.

Now a direct hit on the optics lens would destroy the optics but the Gun would still work, right? And really what are the chance for an optics lens hit?? I would have to say it is very, very low, but in game it just doesn't seem that way.

That banana removal platoon consists mostly of Green Monkeys. IMO completely unreliable and possibly a detractor on the battlefield.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

[CavScout]

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

Cav,

I totally agree with the barrel being hit, but the reasons given out by BTS and others refering to Gun Damage have also stated things like Optics, Gears, etc... which would all be internal to the tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think optics could be damaged by non-penetrating hits but I would think that there would be a set of back-up, likely of lesser quality, sights.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Now a direct hit on the optics lens would destroy the optics but the Gun would still work, right? And really what are the chance for an optics lens hit?? I would have to say it is very, very low, but in game it just doesn't seem that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think optic hits would be rare except when HE was used. [i also think the gun would still work as well.]

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-11-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

If the optics of a tank are hit, it makes it nearly impossible to see anything. I have looked through lots of damaged tank periscopes, sights, etc. and it's generally like looking in a shattered mirror. I don't know how well optics were armored in WWII, but all would take is one bullet/fragment/76mm AP shell in the right place to ruin a sight.

If you think a TC could direct fire adequately from his position, try going to a shooting range and remotely aim a rifle (even in a shooting vise) from 3 feet away. Oh, remember, you only have about 30-40 rds to hit something with and your target moves when shot at.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[jshandorf]

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

If the optics of a tank are hit, it makes it nearly impossible to see anything. I have looked through lots of damaged tank periscopes, sights, etc. and it's generally like looking in a shattered mirror. I don't know how well optics were armored in WWII, but all would take is one bullet/fragment/76mm AP shell in the right place to ruin a sight.

If you think a TC could direct fire adequately from his position, try going to a shooting range and remotely aim a rifle (even in a shooting vise) from 3 feet away. Oh, remember, you only have about 30-40 rds to hit something with and your target moves when shot at.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, the main gun might be a stretch but the Coax MG shouldn't be too difficult.

Anyways, on the German Panther for instance the Gun Optics, if I am correct, consist of a sight in the front turret along side the main gun. This sight is recessed into the turret. Therefore a fragment, bullet or what ever will have an extremely small chance of hitting it.

As I have said before, other than an actual barrel hit I don't really see a Main Gun damage hit happening very often if at all.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

[CavScout]

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

If the optics of a tank are hit, it makes it nearly impossible to see anything. I have looked through lots of damaged tank periscopes, sights, etc. and it's generally like looking in a shattered mirror. I don't know how well optics were armored in WWII, but all would take is one bullet/fragment/76mm AP shell in the right place to ruin a sight.

If you think a TC could direct fire adequately from his position, try going to a shooting range and remotely aim a rifle (even in a shooting vise) from 3 feet away. Oh, remember, you only have about 30-40 rds to hit something with and your target moves when shot at.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did WWII era tanks only have ONE sight system? One would think there is a backup system.

Cav

[IntelWeenie]

FWIW, I agree that gun hits seem to happen quite a bit. I have no evidence pointing one way or the other, though. I just think that once a "gun damaged" result is received, that should be it for that gun.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[aka_tom_w]

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

Did WWII era tanks only have ONE sight system? One would think there is a backup system.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Others on this board have said some very experienced gunners or tank commanders or crew knew how to bore sight by looking down the barrel of the main weapon to "sight the target" locking that posisiton in place, loading the round and firing.

I think this form or bore sighting WAS there only back up system

-tom w

[Diceman]

I would like to know why my gun was out of commision. If it's an optics problem then I should have at least some usability of the gun. I should be able to at least shoot at stationary targets, if at a slower rate (looking through the barrel as described above). If a shot hit the gun mantle so hard that it made the gun inop in some way then so be it, but I want to know. I think the only time the enemy should know there was gun damage is if the barrel itself is vissibly damaged. Just my two cents.

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

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Brer Pinkey]

Just my thoughts on the optics and gearing damage posabilities with gun hits.

Optics: First take your expensive 35 mm telephoto camera lens and drop it from 4 feet... or better yet. Bolt it into an old cast iron kettle and wang thet mother with a 40 lb sledge hammer. Then take a picture.

Gearing: Even simpler. Take that 40 lb sledge and go wack you cars transmision while you are pulling a 5 ton turret up a small hill.

There is an awfull lot of kinetic energy to disperse from a turret/mantlet hit. All it would take to temporarily knock out a gun is one broken gear tooth or sheared pin.

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

"What are we going to do tonight Brain?"

"The same thing we do every night Pinkey... We're going to take over Europe!"

[Dittohead]

Gunner - Gee sarge the optics is broke

TC - Dammit bailey here comes a tank with inf load her up and fire under my direction. Optics/smoshptics

Gunner - but I can't see nothing.

TC - okay left 100 deg elev 1 deg

Gunner - Huh I can't see nothing use your sidearm, hey anybody got some water I'm thirsty

TC - Dammit I said ..boom

[Guest tero]

While experimenting with the non-firing hull MG I ran to this little snare: a gun damaged tank will not move under HUNT orders. It just sits there doing nothing with the way points nicely in place. I think that is a bug.

And I agree. The Germans get way too many gun damages.

[Vanir]

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

While experimenting with the non-firing hull MG I ran to this little snare: a gun damaged tank will not move under HUNT orders. It just sits there doing nothing with the way points nicely in place. I think that is a bug.

And I agree. The Germans get way too many gun damages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the version 1.04 readme file:

* Vehicles in hunt mode, whose guns are damaged, will stop movement and

consider evasive action.

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[Slapdragon]

Not that modern tanks have anything to do with this, but my cousin's husband was a tanker with 1ID and he claims armament and motive casualties are fairly common. Being to gusty with the driving will in some cases shake the fire control of an M1 out of wack and is considered a casualty in the field.

Now, I have had my share of American tanks with dead armament in CM, but what you could be seeing is a statistical fluke. More numerous American tanks coming up against less numerous more powerful German tanks take more shots against the Germans. Hits do not need to penetrate to kill the main gun, merely cause spalling or concussion damage. "Bore sighting" only works at short distances with no arc, since cannon follow the same physical model as rifles (you shoot above a buck in deer hunting when the buck is 200 meters away and your bullet hits it on the down angle, only your sights lie and tell you it is a straight shot),

What we see then is a case of the ant versus the elephant. The elephant can stamp any ant, four ants blazing away at the elephants is goning to do something eventually.

[Stefan]

My 2 cents as well.

In several games - I have had my Panthers guns disabled - I think it happens very often to the point where I am not very enclined to buy Panthers anymore! Woe of woe - my King Tiger was davancing against and MG and it lost its gun too LOL...

Well - such is the Lady Luck

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

No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy

[PzKpfw 1]

I think Steel Beasts models the impact vs turret realisticly as you will lose your LRF, & stabilisation, & hydralics frequently on repeated 125mm APFSDS impacts. But I have never seen the gun out right taken out as even if you lose stabilisation you can engage in Emergency mode, nor have I seen the secondary sight lost to date.

Regards, John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-12-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Well, everybody seems to be saying "Hey, I just get the feeling gun damage happens too often" - but no-one really knows. I don't know either, but my gut feeling is the opposite - I think the gun tube and the manlet have a very high chance of taking hits which put the gun out of action. I also think tanks get knocked out pretty damn often, so it's no surprise that gun damage is a regular occurrence.

If anyone's going to challenge BTS, they need to have statistics, not just gut feelings.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Bastables]

My sig says it all.

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

From one of the Jeffs

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

[Mark IV]

The Gun Hit is an abstraction for ALL the things that go wrong with gunning, while leaving the tank operable as a motor vehicle.

This only happens to include the optics as one of several possibilities. However, if the optics are dead, so is the gun. The tank is a complex system of mechanisms, and while they are built to take punishment, tank shells are built to dish it out.

I am forced to agree with Mr. Aitken that this whole "case" is being built on "feelings", "beliefs", "I should thinks", etc., and that the way to propose a modification is with research.

The main gun, in the front upper center of the AFV, is the most exposed portion of the vehicle to the enemy and will be center of mass to most enemy fire. Statistically, the gun mantlet area will take the most hits. It will not take a full penetration to disable it and there are many photos available of rounds visibly embedded in the armor.

Gun hits are not necessarily an indicator of the fragility of a tank, but their toughness. The AFV gets whacked with a 10 lb. projectile (plus or minus) travelling at speeds of a high-powered rifle bullet, and keeps on going. That's amazing.

If the tube is bent by a millimeter or two, it is wildly inaccurate and useless as a weapon. Much more, and it can explode when fired. How much do you "think" an incoming round would bend it?

The idea of fighting an armored battle without the optical sighting system is laughable. TCs in some tanks (Shermans, for sure) had a rough iron sight for positioning the gunner on target, so he could engage with the gun. There is no way you could hit anything over 10m with such a system.

I suggest that getting in some real tanks and sitting in the gunner's position, and/or some extensive research on documented WWII hit data, would be appropriate before "feeling" that the modeling is incorrect.

[jshandorf]

Someone posted earlier and stated that Gun Damaged hits are hits that do not penetrate the armor. Therefore, how can internal components be damaged to leave the gun inoperable? They can't. Thus a gun damaged hit actually hits the gun.

What I am saying is that the gun is hit WAY too often and even if it is nicked, glanced, or even brushed with a bounced shell it gets damaged. I find this unrealistic.

Most of you have been saying that most of our arguments have been a "feeling" or "I believe", well then, why is the hit modeling done they way it is? Where is the data that backs up all these gun hits?

So far I have seen NOTHING from anybody to refute anything argument put forth on this discussion.

It would be really nice if we could collect all the statements put forth by Steve and Charles into a FAQ fact sheet that can be referenced for times such as these.

I would like an explaination as to WHY there are so many guns hits. This thing about comparing real life to the modeling in the game is silly at best. I would like percentages, or some tables, or something..anything that backs up the current modeling.

Jeff

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

I suggest that getting in some real tanks and sitting in the gunner's position, and/or some extensive research on documented WWII hit data, would be appropriate before "feeling" that the modeling is incorrect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I agree. Some German Tiger Abt war diary's contain the mention of the gun being knocked out of alignment after a 152mm hit, the optics destroyed and the barrel holed by 45mm AT fire but its all rare & never a reacurring event that quantifies as an extremely rare occurence.

As to the location the Germans were adapt at destroying Allied tanks with front turret hits, the Soviets did a study in 1944 that showed over 60% of their tank losses had been from turret front penetrations.

The US & UK gunners generaly from photographic evidence aimed for the glacis, side turret & side hull, armor many of the photos from the West show repeated Glacis hits & few front turret hits.

Whats lacking is a statistical breakdown by cause for German/Allied tank damage, which would be in the workshop diaries for the armored Divs.

Regards, John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-12-2000).]