What does "Gun Damaged" really mean?

[Reaper]

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

Man, is it ever hard to get a gun hit in CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL,

Well I did the same thing last night (10 vs. 10 on flat open farmland. I had 3 german tanks get their guns knocked out, and 2 allied tanks suffered the same fate (just before dying) all in one battle. The German losses were 2(!) Tigers and a Panther G. They were up against Jumbos and M4A3s.

I also talked to some friends in the army last night that serve as armor crew, and they found the idea of a sight or internal gearing getting knocked out by non-penetrating impacts ludicrous (they have never been in combat, but they have beaten the hell out of their 30 year old tanks).

And finally I checked up on the T.Z.F.12 sights used on the Panthers, and they were in fact swapped out primarily because they switched from a more sensitive binocular type to a more rugged monocular (T.Z.F.12a, etc..) type. All late war vehicles used monocular sights. I think this helps explain the field report that Bastables shared with us.

I also decided I just don't care enough to argue about it anymore. I have yet to find a better simulation, so I'll just go be happy with what I've been given.

Anyone up for knocking my guns out in a PBEM?

Reaper

[Philistine]

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

Well I did the same thing last night (10 vs. 10 on flat open farmland. I had 3 german tanks get their guns knocked out, and 2 allied tanks suffered the same fate (just before dying) all in one battle. The German losses were 2(!) Tigers and a Panther G. They were up against Jumbos and M4A3s.

Reaper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you post how many hits vs. gun hits?

E.g, something like-For Germans 100 shots, 20 hits, 3 gun knocked out.

The 5 out of 20 guns knocked out can be a high or low number, depending on what percentage of hits it was.

Thanks!

--Philistine

[CavScout]

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

I also talked to some friends in the army last night that serve as armor crew, and they found the idea of a sight or internal gearing getting knocked out by non-penetrating impacts ludicrous (they have never been in combat, but they have beaten the hell out of their 30 year old tanks).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just ask them about the "dog house", ISU or whatever they want to call it on the tank and see how easily it is to knock it out. The sights can be knocked without a penetrating hit because they are exposed on the turret's top.

Cav

[PzKpfw 1]

I tried to test it today but my & the AI's regular crews were not cooperative & all I came out with was questions on why my Tiger II's accuracy was so bad.

I had 2 Tiger II's regular vs 1 Sherman regular @ 630ms on open flat terrain, both Tiger 2's fired 12 & 10 rounds vs the Shermans 11 shots. Results Sherman scored 10 hits with 1 miss, & the Tigers had 11 & 10 misses with 1 hit.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

[JoePrivate]

I'm not a grognard by any means or even slightly technical. What I have learned about WWII has come from this forum, CMHQ and playing CM. Like others I have rarely seen gun damage from direct fire, when it has happened it is usually from artillery so I setup a scenario and checked the results of 105 and 155 artillery against four Panthers parked 2x2. Both barrages lasted about two minutes.

105 artillery(50 shells)

#1---3 immobilized/1 gun damaged

#2---1 immobilized/1 top penetration

#3---2 immobilized/1 gun damaged

#4---1 gun damaged

#5---no effect

#6---1 immobilized/2 gun damaged

#7---2 immobilized/1 gun damaged

#8---2 immobilized/2 top penetrations

#9---3 immobilized

#0---1 immobilized

155 artillery(25 shells)

#1---3 immobilized/1 gun damaged

#2---2 immobilized/3 gun damaged

#3---2 immobilized

#4---2 immobilized/1 gun damaged/1 top penetration

#5---4 immobilized

#6---1 immobilized/2 top penetrations

#7---3 immobilized/1 gun damaged

#8---3 immobilized/1 gun damaged

#9---3 immobilized

#0---3 immobilized/1 top penetration

While interesting in highlighting the power of artillery, any half decent player would have blown that particular popsicle stand as soon as the first shells started landing, with a 'Catch me if you can' as his parting words. Just some more food for thought.

[jshandorf]

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

Even more important is the total area over which the force is applied, known domestically as foot-pounds, probably meter/kilos for the metrically inclined. If you apply 20 pounds of force to a one foot square, there will be a slight pressure. If you apply that same pressure to a one-millimeter square, you will poke a hole in a person.

A tank has 30 tons of inertia (not to mention damping buffers of various kinds) to absorb recoil. Take that same energy and apply it to a 75mm circle (actually far less area, thus higher focused pressure, at the hardened tip of the projectile before it collapses) and you poke holes in tanks. Some of them, anyway.

I just haven't had that many gun hits in CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But wouldn't THAT be a penetration? Therefore it is excluded from what we are talking about. We are talking about bounces, therefore it is of more concern how the kenetic energy is dispersed through the vehicle.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-13-2000).]

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

"No it doesn't. The bullet leaves the gun. It is in your hand. If the bullet has enough force to knock a person off it's feet it would knock YOU off your feet. Period. Man, go back to school on this. You are wrong."

no he isn't.

I guess we all agree that the kinetic energy is the same, obviously (actio counterequal to reactio).

However, the buildup of the force is slower in the firing person, the person is prepared for firing the handgun, and the gun is held in such a position that the absorbing of the same kinetic energy is possible, whil that same kinetic energy in the target hits even faster, an unprepared position and in a (if it does) inopportune location.

If you fire a 44 magnum by holding it in a combat grip it will give you a nasty kick. If you hit some unprepared person at the right location it might very well knock that person over.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the person being shot was prepared they could also NOT be knocked down. Also if the person firing the gun was not prepared then they could fall down. Basically the principle is, if the force is enough where it can knock your target down it can knock you down and vice versa.

Don't make me find my High School physics teacher's e-mail address so that he can correct you on this.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-13-2000).]

[jshandorf]

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

Yes I suppose a battalion’s appreciation report listing the weakness inherent in mounting a sight in the mantle is irrelevant to the discussion. And so is the truncated history of German sighting development and mountings and the attempts by the Germans to minimize the problem. All of these drawn from primary sources, non factual because they contradict you and your subjective thoughts on the matter.

No Jeff you haven’t come up with a dam thing to support your argument while I’ve already put two pertaining to the discussion up. Instead you come up with ‘weird outta your arse calculations’ and specious statements that a direct hit is required to put a sight out of action. Did you know that there is a diameter around that tiny hole that can offer as little as 50% protection of the actual thickness involved. You don’t even need a direct hit on the hole to 'reach' in and break things that the hole hides because any penetration a calibre away will cave the hole in as the shell/shot plops through the weak area.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, I am soooo impressed. It doesn't take a wizard to snip a quote or document and make it fit whatever you want. I am sure if I search hard and long enough I could find a single report on how durable the optic sights are in a certain German tank, but if I did would it prove my point? Would you be convinced? No.

So don't be so naive.

So attacking this discussion from a logical and scientific standpoint is just pulling things out of my arse? Well then we all might as well quit debating this, right? Get real.

So far there has been no real hard proven documentation on the aspect of gun damage hits. A single report of a Battalion needing more sights for thier tanks is at best marginal support. Also as it has been pointed out before that was a report from '43 and if there was a problem it would have been addressed long before Mid '44. THEREFORE your evidence is at best useless. So quit touting it as proof.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-13-2000).]

[Mark IV]

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

Like others I have rarely seen gun damage from direct fire, when it has happened it is usually from artillery so I setup a scenario and checked the results of 105 and 155 artillery<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That confirms my experience- the plunging trajectory of indirect fire weapons is much more likely to result in Gun Hits. As poor rune can attest- I maimed his Hetzer with a 60mm mortar round, while it was in a head to head duel with my Firefly.

Better to be lucky than good.

[Philistine]

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

If the person being shot was prepared they could also NOT be knocked down. Also if the person firing the gun was not prepared then they could fall down. Basically the principle is, if the force is enough where it can knock your target down it can knock you down and vice versa.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're confusing two issues. The first, which you are absolutely correct on, is a conservation of energy issue, i.e. the energy of the bullet leaving the gun is the same as that when it impacts the target (also, FWIW for the previous post, "foot-pound" is not a unit of pressure (force/area) it is unit of energy. A little over a joule IIRC).

However, the effect of the impact on the target is not necessarily the same. Regardless of whether you are "ready" for the impact of a bullet, the affect (even if you are fully protected by bullet-proof clothing) will be different depending on where it hits, and the nature of the protection.

It is very possible for a non-penetrating bullet to break bones despite the fact that the firer did not break a bone when firing. You can be knocked over, even if you are "ready" for it if it hits you far from your center of mass, or in a leg.

Similarly, a pitched baseball may cause a concussion to a batter who is hit in the head, despite the lack of injury to the pitcher from throwing it, though the energy was equivalent.

While you may have a point that non-penatrating rounds shouldn't cause damage to armored mechanisms in the game, either at all(which I disagree with) or with the frequency that is modelled (which I'm still ambivalent about, although I haven't pesonally noticed a problem), I don't think conservation of energy is really supporting your position.

Just my $.02.

--Philistine

[Banshee]

Just some useless blathering by myself,

A) Gun hits in CM are a rare thing from my playing experience.

Although I only slightly read the Jentz Panzer Truppe's books I do remember a story of one tank getting a gun pushed back into the turret of the tank (it was in the Italy section if IIRC).

C) The went out of my to try and get gun hits in a scenario I created, having Jumbo's vs KT's @ 1500m's , they were bouncing shots off each other like crazy, finally got a gun hit on a KT. IMHO the tougher the tank (or the weaker the gun?) the more likely it will be that the tank might suffer a gun hit (since it suffers a lot more hits). Uber-tank syndrome will be the most likely cause of getting yourself a gun hit.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Bastables]

Cripes Jeff you think that your simplistic formula is scientific just because it uses maths? You've ignored a vital element of the calculation and what Cav has stated aim point. You can never have a 'equal' chance in anything with more than two variables all one can manage in pulling names from a hat is a chance less than one and greater than zero. And the attempts at equal spread are even more worthless when you have an aim point. But with your other shenanigans with basic physics I wouldn’t put it past you to fumble basic statistics.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-13-2000).]

[Bastables]

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

LOL,

And finally I checked up on the T.Z.F.12 sights used on the Panthers, and they were in fact swapped out primarily because they switched from a more sensitive binocular type to a more rugged monocular (T.Z.F.12a, etc..) type. All late war vehicles used monocular sights. I think this helps explain the field report that Bastables shared with us.

I also decided I just don't care enough to argue about it anymore. I have yet to find a better simulation, so I'll just go be happy with what I've been given.

Reaper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So how do you explain the continued development away from mantle mounted sight: The SFZ series. The upgrades in the mantlet-mounted series was not considered rugged enough, there was a process of continued development to minimize the problem.

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

From the jshandorf

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

Mr T's reply

"Don't touch me FOO!"

[M. Bates]

Edited by Steve because of some strange problem M.Bates, you are welcome to try it again.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-14-2000).]

[Reaper]

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

The 5 out of 20 guns knocked out can be a high or low number, depending on what percentage of hits it was.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey,

Since I didn't write down anything but gun results, I did another test tonight.

I set up a Panther G (late) vs. an M4A3 (W+) in an open field at 692 meters. Both were regulars; Panther's chance to hit = 15%; Sherman's chance to hit = 16%.

I let each get 50 shots (over several games - I just kept reloading the saved setup). Here are the results:

Panther

=======

Kills vs. Enemy - 7

Richochets - 5

Misses - 38

Sherman

=======

Kills vs. Enemy - 2 (1 vs. weak point)

Immobilized - 2

Gun Damaged - 1

Richochets - 10

Misses - 35

So, overall, the Panther was definitely getting better kills. As I said, I'm done with this argument. I am very happy with the game, and one little thing like this isn't worth losing sleep over. I just responded because you asked, and I didn't want to come across as lazy.

Take it easy,

Reaper

[Philistine]

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

Since I didn't write down anything but gun results, I did another test tonight.

{Snip results}

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't mean for you to have to run your test over again. I wouldn't think you were lazy .

I appreciate the numbers, just to get a feel if this is a problem or not. For the panther, 1 out of 15 hits is gun damage, a little less than 7%, doesn't seem out of line, although it is a pretty small sample.

Thanks again.

--Philistine

[Vanir]

Bates: would you please edit your post so that this thread isn't 6 miles wide. Your GIF isn't even showing up anyways.

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

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

[Dittohead]

I was wondering if the caliber of the gun determines the possiblity of gun damage. Will a 105mm have a better chance than 75mm? How about HE vs AP?

Tony

[PzKpfw 1]

Heh was playing Eseldorf revised today had 3 gun hits 2 on Pershing's from Tigers & one on a Jumbo from a 5cm PAK.

M26 - 1 1st shot from Tiger II

M26-2 3rd shot Tiger 1

Jumbo - 2nd shot 5cm PAK.

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 09-14-2000).]

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Heh was playing Eseldorf revised today had 3 gun hits 2 on Pershing's from Tigers & one on a Jumbo from a 5cm PAK.

M26 - 1 1st shot from Tiger II

M26-2 3rd shot Tiger 1

Jumbo - 2nd shot 5cm PAK.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Played Elsdorf the other day and had no gun hits at all. Killed a lot of Tigers though. That 90mm goes through them like a hot knife through butter. Mmm, butter...

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Played Elsdorf the other day and had no gun hits at all. Killed a lot of Tigers though. That 90mm goes through them like a hot knife through butter. Mmm, butter...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was my point you can see it happen repeatedly or not see it at all, its the random factor.

I had my 1st suprise today all the German tanks survived even 2 Tiger E that took 2 hits a piece from M26's & the Tiger II took 4, and my tanks slaughtered the US armor. I lost 1 tank in the whole battle. So today the Tigers & PzKpfw IV's had the sharper knife ..

In all my other run throughs of Eseldor I used to lose alota Tigers.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

[Vanir]

Ok, I decided it was time to set aside "gut feeling" and hunches and do some real tests. So, I took 3 Panther As and lined them up about 30 meters apart 700m from 3 Jumbo 75s similarly spaced and let them go at it. The test had to be run multiple times because the Jumbos kept dying Results:

Range: 700m

Panther As

Hits taken: 102

Hits resulting in immobilization: 3

Gun hits resulting in gun damage: 1

Jumbos

Hits taken: 113

Immobilizations: 4

Gun Hits resulting in gun damage: 2

Weak point penetrations: 1

No Panthers were knocked out. The Jumbos rarely lasted more than 2 turns. I probably should have kept track of how many Jumbos were knocked out, but it didn't seem important since the main complaint has been too many gun hits on German UberTanks.

If anyone thinks there is something wrong with the way I did this test that invalidates the data, say what it is and I will change it and run it again. Otherwise, I think this clearly shows that gun hits are indeed quite rare (at least from AT fire, arty seems to be another matter.)

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

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

[PzKpfw 1]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kewel I dont think theirs anything that could invalidate anyones tests as IMO if we all ran the same test's we'd prolly all get diferent results, I call it the random factor.

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 09-14-2000).]

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Kewel I dont think theirs anything that could invalidate anyones tests as IMO if we all ran the same test's we'd prolly all get diferent results, I call it the random factor.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your basicly correct John, but only to an extent. The random factor you refer to is technicly called Standard Deviation. If I was to run the same test again it is quite likely I would come up with different results, but it is very unlikely they would differ by a large amount. For example, I came up with a total of 3 gun hits out of 215 total hits. If I ran the test again I could very easily get 2, 4, or even 6, but it is very unlikely I would get 15 or 20. My sample size is large enough that my results should be a good general indicator of the overall likelyhood of a gun hit, but are likely not exact.

I wish I still had my old college stats book around and could figure the exact odds, but it's been a few years and I can't remember the formulas now.

BTW, John, I'm well aware than you probably already know all this, I'm just posting it so someone else reading this thread won't be confused.

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

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