How does the game simulate tank gunnery?

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Greetings all

I have been playing the CM golde demo for some time now and it is great. But I am a litte interested in how the game simulates the tank gunners actions. I have seen tanks miss their target completely at ranges under 300m. Ok, that probably happened sometimes during the war, but the when a second shot also misses, something is wrong. Are the gunners blind?? Do they need glasses?? The German Zeiss optics was actually quite good and they where very accurate. The American optics was not that good in comparison. The German gunners should have a distinct advantage just because of their optics. Is this more clear at engagements over long ranges in CM??

And does the hit probability increase after the first shot?? I have seen my StugIII gunners miss the first shot against Shermans hoping they would nail them with the next shot. But sometimes the second shot can be even further of target. Is there a logic to all this or is it just chance??

Qualified answers would be greatly appreciated.

Many thx

Former tank gunner

Heinz 25th PzReg

[CoolColJ]

Well you should be more than qualified to argue this

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

CCJ

aka BLITZ_Force

My Hompage ----> http://www.geocities.com/coolcolj

Double your immersion with my Tweaked Textures and Saving Private Ryan sound set mods for CM!! Check out my new Textures V2.0 photo Gallery and my music while your there, or grab a CM Wallpaper!

[Guest tom w]

Hi

I think you are correct to suggest that some form of odds modification should take place on the second shot and every shot there after a first shot miss.

Based on my limited understanding of the odds calucalation that determines if a round hits an enemy AFV in the gold demo (and your observation that the second shot may miss as well) I would suggest the odds and calucalations of a shot hitting its target (re: the previous thread regarding LOS through live vehicles were Method One and Method Two were discussed) are modeled on other igo-ugo 2D Board games. Tobruk was a good AH game that modeled the outcome of EVERY round by a die roll. In that board game there was no modifier for the second or third shot fired after a miss.

I suspect you are VERY correct, (and I respect your experience ) that the second shot at 300 meters should always be a hit (especially if targeted by a german gunner with Zeiss optics) I would suggest to you that the process that determines whether or not it was a hit does a seperate and unrelated calculation for EVERY round, irrespective of a first shot miss.

I could be wrong, but ( from your experience and my own playing the game) I would say there is no modifier built into the second shot fired. I would guess that every round that is fired uses the EXACT same look-up table and the exact same odds to determine a hit or not. I say this because somtimes, I have been very surprised by a tank gunner who has knocked out two Stugs in CE (Gold Demo) in the same 1 minute turn by luckily hitting and KO'ing both with the first shot , one after another. (I would say that is just lucky)

Again these are all my opinions based on experience playing the gold demo and based on odds of hitting AFV's from Tobruk (every tank was modeled as well as every round fired) my guess is that the look up table to determine the hit in CM in the Gold Demo is NOT modified for the second shot after a miss. In order to do this the game would have to keep track of NOT only every round fired for every tank, but account for attempts to target enemy tanks and modify the odds the look-up table ( a table of numbers determining probability of a hit based on the type of weapon fired, the size of the type of target, {QUESTION HERE for Charles: is there a modifirer in this table for a moving or non-moving target, or a if the tank firing is moving or not moving} and the range to the target, I'll bet there is NO modifier for a first shot miss on this table) to calculate the possibility (odds) of a hit by tracking successive misses in order to model the "reality" of what Heinz is describing.

I'm sure Charles could tell us if "first Shot Misses" affect or modify the second or following shots. It is my guess (I hope I'm wrong) that a first shot miss does not modify the odds or liklihood of a second shot hit at all. Think of it this way, each shot that is fired is another seperate Die roll on the same look up table independant of the shot before or after. (Hienz, in your case I would suggest when you fired the second shot after the miss you rolled the dice (to determine the hit) poorly and were simply UNLUCKY two times in a row? German Zeiss optics be damned!)

Just my opinion and not a critiscm....

BUT Hienz raises a VERY good point...

A first shot miss "should" modify the odds of a hit on then second shot and that modifcation variable could be different for different nations that use different targeting optics, I would ask (since I don't know) how others here would rate the optics in Tank guns for the different tanks from different nations like the U.S. the British the Germans (and for CM2, the soonest we may actually see this feature), the Russian tanks.

Again just an opinion and an observation.

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-15-2000).]

[Ben Galanti]

From way back when (the Alpha game between Moon and Fionn), Charles had this to say:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is simplified because the target acquisition system causes first shots to be less accurate while later shots become progressively more accurate as the gunners "find the range"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000545.html for the whole post

So, subsequent shots are more likely to hit. Now, my understanding is that CM calculates a hit or a miss, and if it's a miss, then calculates were the shot goes. So, second (and later) shots are more likely to hit. I'm not sure, however, that if a miss is calculated for a follow on shot, whether that shot 'misses closer' or if it just uses the same algorithim as any other shot. If follow on shots just use the same algorithim as first shots, then you might end up with the situation you describe.

Now, I also seem to remember that this follow on bonus is only true if both tanks are stationary (I couldn't find that reference though via search, so I could be wrong about this). If that's the case, even a small amount of movement may reset to first round accuracy. Now, it can be argued that if your target only moves 'a little bit' it shouldn't matter. But then you get into the subjective of what is a 'little bit'... I'll have to leave this to someone who has more knowledge on the inner workings of CM though...

[Fionn]

A lot of what you all are saying this thread is incorrect.

CM DOES model the increase in accuracy from multiple firings at a single target (whether it is stationary or not).

Against stationary tanks 300 metres away IN THE OPEN with no intervening los-blocking terrain I have no problem having Veteran gunners get 80% plus hit chances.

However tanks are RARELY in such an ideal situation vis a vis your gun and thus real world hit %es are lowered. (PLUS crew quality plays a big part here).

[tss]

I just (5 minutes ago) came across two quotes that give some light to AT-gun accuracy. (The translations are mine)

Veikko Hallavo (who served in 2./Pz.J. Abt 5./SS-Div Wiking) wrote the following text in his diary on 18.11.1941:

"... An enemy tank at 2 o'clock, range 400 meters, so be careful, Teufel [= nickname of corporal Toivo Kruuna]! First round misses the tank slightly from right. Second round, short. That's enough for tank and it starts to retreat behind a hillock. Third shot, a hit! The tank stops still. Now the "little-paks" [= 37mm AT guns"] notice it and start heavy firing. We heard tank noices from right. I ordered to change the gun position and the manouver was very slow. We started shooting right away and again third shot hit its mark."

A short while later an infantry attack forced Hallavo to abandon his 50mm AT gun and they had to run away to a nearby village. Another diary source mentions that the second tank was 50 meters away when it was destroyed but the writer was not present and was telling what he had heard.

Note that during the same battle Major Plöw (commander of III/Nordland/SS-Div Wiking) stopped a Soviet tank using a quite extraordinary weapon: a cognac bottle. A tank surprised him when he was in his car and he grabbed the first thing that he could lay his hands on and threw it at the tank. Apparently the tank commander thought that they were hit by a Molotov's coctail that hadn't ignited and decided to retreat to safety.

The second quote comes from Martti Leppälä's diary who served in 1./Pz.J.Abt 5. This entry is for 22.11.1941:

"... two tanks advanced from left to right, that is, they were passing us. We manhandled the gun to the right end of a shed and shot 3-4 rounds. The range was about 800 meters and all shots were short. The Russkie was shooting at us with the tank gun even as we pushed our gun but all his shots went behind the shed, though quite near us. Now that we shot back he started shooting even more. He even shot our truck but no one was in it. We pushed the gun again to firing position and shot another salvo but again all were short. I said to the gunner that he should aim higher but he didn't believe me. After we had fired five shots without hitting we again pushed the gun in cover behind the shed."

Later the gun was damaged by a near miss that also killed two men and wounded one of the five man crew. Leppälä was one of the men who were not wounded but during the same time he was hit by a schrapnell during an artillery barrage.

- Tommi

[Guest tom w]

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

A lot of what you all are saying this thread is incorrect.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets be clear here....

There are two things happening in this thread

Heinz is "reporting" his experience. (ie. two misses at 300 meteres)

And I respect his experience as a WWII German tank gunner. If someone with this real world experience says:

In the gold demo..

"I have seen tanks miss their target completely at

ranges under 300m. Ok, that probably happened sometimes during the

war, but the when a second shot also misses, something is wrong. Are

the gunners blind?? Do they need glasses?? The German Zeiss optics

was actually quite good and they where very accurate."

Then I have to wonder if he was just REALLY unlucky on those two shots or if the modifier for the second shot REALLY enhances the odds of the second round hitting the target.

I was reporting,in some of my post, my experience with A Sherman KO'ing two stugs one after another in one minute.

The rest of it was an opinion based on discusions in that other thread about Method One and Method Two when we were discussing LOS and LOF through live units and non-flaming ko'd units.

I understand from that thread that look-up tables (some call this process the use of algorythms) determine the odds of a hit or a miss. Obvious factors here are range to the target, type of weapon fired, type of round,type of unit targeted, hull down or not hull down, and target moving or not moving.

NOW exactly what those look-up tables contain and what modifiers effect the odds of a hit, I would suggest only Steve and Charles know that for sure.

I wonder if they will share the details of what the odds are? I would like to know HOW, in the process of targetting the second or third shot after a first shot miss, has the greater chance of a hit been modeled or calculated. Is this greater chance of a second round hit the same greater chance for every tank modeled and the same for AFV's of every nation?

Just curious ?

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Hi again folks

I would like to clear up a little misunderstanding. I was not a WW2 German tank gunner. I was a tank gunner on a Norwegian Leopard 1 and my online name (Heinz 25th PzReg) is from my Panzer Elite unit. I am sorry if I appeared like a German tank veteran, but I can assure you that it was not my attention.

But I still would like to know the answer to the question asked by Tom W. above:

"I would like to know HOW, in the process of targetting the second or third shot after a first shot miss, has the greater chance of a hit been modeled or calculated. Is this greater chance of a second round hit the same greater chance for every tank modeled and the same for AFV's of every nation?

"

Sorry for any misunderstandings, ok?

Still former tank gunner (Leopard 1,

still a member of the online Panzer Elite unit 25th PzReg, and still called Heinz

[Guest tom w]

I would like to qualify this statement

it may be wrong but I would prefer to qualify it before it is misinterpretted:

"I could be wrong, but ( from your experience and my own playing the game) I would say there is no modifier built into the second shot fired. I would guess that every round that is fired (at the same range from the same gun at the same target) uses the EXACT (unmodified) same look-up table and the exact same odds to determine a hit or not. I say this because somtimes, I have been very surprised by a tank gunner who has knocked out two Stugs in CE (Gold Demo) in the same 1 minute turn by luckily hitting and KO'ing both with the first shot , one after another. (I would say that is just lucky)"

Here I am refering to the "exact" same algorythm or look-up table for every shot fired, within a given set of circumstances, NOT that there is only one table or calculation to determine a hit or a miss, clearly it is obvious that a GREAT deal of work has gone into this very process and the calculation to attempt to simulate the odds of a hit or a miss is obviously very complicated.

But I have had a similiar expereince to Heinz playing CE in the Gold Demo. I would say I have seen NO evidence that there was a greater likelyhood of a hit on the second or third round at any range.

Heinz: at 300 meters would you say the odds of a hit on the third round if the first to miss, should be very close to %100?

I'm curious to hear more about Heinz' real world tank gunnery experience. (even if it is not from WW 11, sorry for the incorrect assumption and implication earlier)

Thanks

-tom W

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-15-2000).]

[tss]

I'm curious to hear more about Heinz' real world tank gunnery experience. (even if it is not from WW 11, sorry for the incorrect assumption and implication earlier)

Of course, one has to remember that modern tanks are much more accurate than WWII tanks.

- Tommi

[Bullethead]

Tommi said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We pushed the gun again to firing position and shot another salvo but again all were short. I said to the gunner that he should aim higher but he didn't believe me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just read a book called "Panzerjager," by William Folkestad, which is the memoirs of a German ATG gunner named Bernhard Averbeck. Among other interesting tidbits is something that might have bearing on the above quote.

ATGs were designed with as low a silouhette as possible, but this came with a price. According to Averbeck, because the muzzle was so close to the ground, each firing kicked up a big cloud of dust. This totally blocked the gunner's LOS so that he couldn't see where his shot went. Thus, the usual practice was to have one of the crew out just in front of the gun to observe the fall of shot and yell back corrections to the gunner. This was apparently even necessary with 37mm PAKs, and was usually the job given to (expendable) newbies on the crew.

Anyway, it sounds like your diary writer was the observer in this situation.

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Bullethead]

Tom W said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would say I have seen NO evidence that there was a greater likelyhood of a hit on the second or third round at any range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor should you see such evidence, because none is presented to you in the game. No % to hit number is displayed for 2nd and subsequent shots happening in the movie. All you see is the end result, a hit or a miss. So the odds of hitting with these shots could, for all you know, be decreasing, constant, or increasing.

In this situation, the only thing we can do is accept what the guy who wrote the code said: the odds increase. So if you see several misses in a row, you just had a run of bad luck.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>at 300 meters would you say the odds of a hit on the third round if the first to miss, should be very close to %100?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? A statement like this assumes that a LOT of variables in the tactical situation either are constant or do not exist. This is just not the case. It is VERY possible for repeated misses of "easy" shots to happen in the stress and chaos of combat. I've seen it and even done it myself.

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[tss]

Anyway, it sounds like your diary writer was the observer in this situation.

It is possible, the text doesn't say it. The writer was a corporal in Finnish army but I don't know what his rank was in SS. The Finnish volunteers were promised that they would have the same military rank as they had in Finland but because of some mistake many of them had to go to war as privates.

In any case, the writer mentions that the gun leader, the assistant gunner, and a third man died so that rules out quite many positions.

- Tommi

[PanzerLeader]

Tommi, I'm curious, where did you find those WW2 diaries? In a book, or are they originals?

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Reply to Tom W. and Bullethead

Two things:

1. I can not say that a third shot at a target 300m away has a 100% hit chance. What I am saying is that the chances of a hit should increase with more shots. But there is no such thing as normal combat situations and the results should vary. But I think we can all agree that the hit probability should increase with more shots, unless the gunner is distracted in a major way.

2. The issue of optics.

The german Zeiss optics was far better than the allied optics. This should give the german gunners a higher hit possibility than the allied gunners. So far I have only seen that the german tanks and TD`s have higher hit possibility at long ranges due to their high velocity guns. The gunnery optics is infact a very important part of the tanks ability to hit targets accuratly.

Could someone from BTS please try to answer these questions??

Regards

Heinz 25th PzReg

[Bullethead]

Heinz 27, er 25th, said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The german Zeiss optics was far better than the allied optics. This should give the german gunners a higher hit possibility than the allied gunners. So far I have only seen that the german tanks and TD`s have higher hit possibility at long ranges due to their high velocity guns. The gunnery optics is infact a very important part of the tanks ability to hit targets accuratly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you be sure the better German accuracy at long range is solely due to higher velocity guns? I've never seen a break-down of where the numbers come from.

But it seems to me that superior optics wouldn't make much difference at short range where anybody can see the target, and would only be significant at long range or in bad lighting conditions.

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Hi again Bullethead

1. About german tanks and their high velocity guns:

What I meant was that the german tanks have higher armour penetration values than the allied tanks in CM due to their high velocity guns. Right-click on the unit in the game and you will see that. Sorry for my mistake.

2. The importance of german Zeiss optics even at short ranges:

With the german optics you could easilier estimate the exact range to the target. This would have played a role even at shorter ranges. The allied optics had no way to estemate the range to the target, and the gunner had to trust his feelings or use the coax machine gun to find the range.

For those of you that have played Panzer Elite, you are aware of the difference in german and allied optics. If you havent seen a Zeiss optics before, you can go to this URL and read about how it worked.

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/turret/pegunnery/pegunnery.shtml

Regards,

Heinz 25th PzReg

[Ben Galanti]

www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001449.html

This thread has some comentary on BTS's decision not to factor in optics. Note that this thread is 6 months old, so things may have changed since then (but if this has changed, I don't think it's been mentioned here)

[Guest tom w]

again....

this is just my opinion, althought now that I have just read it over what I typed, it sounds like I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about...

Please...... (I'm just hypothisizing here)

Better german accuracy at longer range can't be determined by the info you get in the info window on a particular tank or gun.

The info given is only relevant if the result of the shot is a hit. The info shows a table of armour penetration values at certain ranges, this cannot possibilty have ANYTHING to do with the odds of a hit or a miss. As I understand it, the first thing that happens in the shot fired resolution processs (I just made that up) is a determination if there is a hit or a miss. The armour penetration values shown in the info window only become relevant after the round has been determined to be a hit and the process has made another determination as to where on the vehicle the round hit, THEN you can see in the info that

if the round hit and if it hit the upper hull,

(the armour thickness of the upper hull of the target can be known from its info window) then you can see if the round penetrated or not based on where it hit and from what range, these numbers we can see. BUT after that (the result here seems to be YES or NO ie., penetration or no penetration)  I have seen rounds penetrate the tank AND then do no damage (not that unrealistic I assume)

So... (I would conclude)

the process goes something like this:

1 round fired at what range odds here determine Hit or Miss?

2 if miss where did the round go?

2a if hit where on the AFV did the round hit?

(look-up table for different parts of the tanks that could be hit, odds determine where the round struck the AFV)

3 based on gun type and armour thickness of target (all can be seen in the info window)

did the round penetrate? Yes or NO (no odds, straight math, a round from an 88 can go through 'x' inches of armour at 'y' meters, simple. At a given range is the armour at the point where the round was determined to have hit greater than or less than x, if great than x = ricoche, if less than x = penetration!) if = equal to x there seems to be a result that indicates inner "paint" or inner skin flaking?

(I think)

4 If the round penetrated what damage did it do?

4a if the round did not penetrate (ricoche) where did it go.

The only 2 calculations here that could benefit from high qualifty Zeiss optics are the first two Hit or Miss and Where did it hit assuming that good gunners aimed at known weak spots on opposing tanks from their previous experience.

I would suggest there is no modifier in the process to determine the result of #1 and #2 that takes into account the suggested higher quality of the German Zeiss optics?

comments?

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-15-2000).]

[Guest tom w]

OK this was the post from Steve some time ago:

"Software Moderator

posted 11-08-1999 09:42 PM

Scott is basically correct. Each tank's RoF was partially determined by crew space and ammo locations, as well as shell size. Some gun systems, like the one in the Stuart IIRC, even had a semi-auto loading feature that speeded up RoF. So shell size is but one factor. Crew experience not only improves RoF, but it also improves accuracy and reaction time. In other words, it is VERY important!

I forget what the max map size is, but I think one length can be about 4000m.

Honestly, I can't remember. We've changed it a couple of time.

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.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-08-99).] "

Well, like everyhting else that some one wants included or modeled in the game to better simulate the Reality of combat and German gunnery and the Zeiss optics specifically we would have to provide data, facts figures and research to back up a claim that this Zeiss optics worked (exactly ) this much or that much better than any other optics to able to model or factor in a "Zeiss Optics" odds modifier in to the hit or miss odds determinaton on the look-up table for the first step in the fire result determination process.

I, for one, would not even begin to know where to look for such hard data as the odds of enhanced targeting by German optics. I understand Steven and Charles and BTS when they say SHOW us the data that will let us put this enhanced optics modifirer in the game and we will take a good long hard look at it.

Perhaps we could put this one the list for

CM2 as this may have played a bigger factor on the Eastern front. But in historical reality I really dont know if it did?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-15-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I could be wrong, but ( from your experience and my own playing the game) I would say there is no modifier built into the second shot fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's wrong. CM models target acquisition - essentially, finding the correct range to the target (sometimes called "bracketing"). You'd be amazed at:

1. How difficult this is for a real-life gunner to do correctly, with only World War Two technology. German optics help a bit, but not much at short range (like 300m).

2. More importantly: these guys aren't firing on a calm gunnery range. They're firing under all the stresses and extreme time pressures of combat, usually while someone else is firing back. So we're simulating human error more than limitations of the weapons systems in a physical sense.

Most second-shots at 300m will hit. But some won't, and that's how it should be.

Subsequent shots, even those that miss, are likely to miss by less. But they're not guaranteed to do so. We are dealing with human error here, not robot-controlled laser cannon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>QUESTION HERE for Charles: is there a modifirer in this table for a moving or non-moving target, or a if the tank firing is moving or not moving<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would like to know HOW, in the process of targetting the second or third shot after a first shot miss, has the greater chance of a hit been modeled or calculated. Is this greater chance of a second round hit the same greater chance for every tank modeled and the same for AFV's of every nation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Short of posting our equations (which I don't want to do) I'm not sure how to answer this question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Heinz: at 300 meters would you say the odds of a hit on the third round if the first to miss, should be very close to %100?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't direct this to me, but I'll answer anyway: No. (80%? Yes. 100%? In the thick of combat? No.)

Charles

[Doug Beman]

It might also be noted that we're more likely to have evidence of exceptionally good vs. piss-poor accuracy, because the people who don't shoot straight probably don't live to lament their inaccuracy (or at least their record is less likely to be prominently featured in books etc.)

DjB

[Lee]

Charles, I have been wondering about something. Let's

say one of my units has been targeting an enemy for a couple

turns and has thus gained the to hit bonus for target aquisition.

Then while giving orders for the next turn I pick a new target for

my unit, then change my mind and have him keep firing at the

enemy he has been firing at (this is during the same orders phase,

no combat has happened in the next round yet). Does the bonus to hit

still apply for the next round of combat, or does unclicking the

target unit make the bonus "reset" even if you change it right back?

Logically the bonus should still apply as what counts is time

spent aquiring in combat, not what happens in the orders phase. But

I'm not sure if there is a quirk in the game mechanics that

might take away the bonus if the target line is broken for some reason.

[Guest tom w]

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

Short of posting our equations (which I don't want to do) I'm not sure how to answer this question.

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok

well of course I would like to see the equations, but I don't blame you for not posting them.

Our experience here does show you how much LUCK is involved. Sometimes you get lucky on the first shot and brew up the target and sometimes it takes three rounds just to watch one ricoche off or penetrate with no damage.

oh well

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Renaud]

Hi all.

It occurrs to me that at ranges less than 300 meters (and even farther out for really high velocity guns like the panther's or the 88) the trajectory of high velocity anti tank guns does not vary more than the vertical size of the target. In other words, you can simply lay the aiming reticle centermass and you will get a hit assuming ONE important thing: The reticle must be boresighted correctly. For you non-tankers out there, boresighting is the process of making sure the aiming reticle is pointing exactly where the center of the gun tube is pointing. This must be done periodically because the optical sights and gun tube of every tank are different and the factory alignment changes over time with tube wear, outside temperature, etc. This will insure that the range bars show the actual range when you must aim-off for long range shots in which the projectile experiences significant drop due to the effect of the earths gravity and the slowing of the projectile itself.

What this means is that the talk of 'corrections' made for subsequent shots is meaningless for short range situations in which you can simply lay the reticle on the target and press the trigger. This does NOT mean 100% chance of hitting of course. Many things can change the boresight during the course of a battle...jarring of the optics...tube droop caused by heating...an incorrect original boresight setting...a hangover...drawers full of poop...you get the idea.

If the boresight is off for any reason then you are reduced to guessing. There's not going to be any 'correction based on observation of fallen shot' because: 1) high velocity rounds that miss high will fly into never-never land; 2) Sign of the shot fall will be obscured at these short ranges by the muzzle flash and smoke and would likely dissapear out of your field of view or in foliage in any case (solid shot); 3) All but steely-hearted elite panzer crews will be both screaming and praying not to die at the same time.

Trying to find logic in short range tank duels is a hopeless task. Too many variables. Might as well be purely random or based only on crew state/skill. The most important thing is who-sees-who first and turret orientation/rotational speed...assuming equal gun/armor of course.

I think the current system mimics the chaos of close range gunnery just fine.

IIRC The modern 105mm british and 120mm german guns can simply be laid right on the target if you are under 600 meters or so. You don't need aim-off unless you are leading a moving target. In fact I would think this is a good way to aim a WWII high velocity carriage mounted AT gun for first shots. Keep the breech open and look down the tube at the target. Center target. Slam a round in and fire. This is a theory since i've never tried it.

Ren

former 19K 2/3ACR E Troop driver/loader/gunner/TC at various times/places.