How does the game simulate tank gunnery?

[Ron]

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

or does unclicking the target unit make the bonus "reset" even if you change it right back?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try it for yourself, you'll see that any aquiring bonus is lost if you switch targets.

Ron

[Fionn]

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

Umm, Tom w etc.. I said the above in like the third post to this thread. I thought it was VERY clear in saying that CM DOES model increasing accuracy based on number of shots fired at target.

[Guest tom w]

Hi Ren

Thanks for the insight, truly informative posts like yours that are based on real world experience are one of the major reasons I read this forum and particularily this thread.

I'm inspired when I hear you say that the tank gunnery odds of hitting and missing "feel" right to you. This seems to differ from Heinz's feeling that perhaps his gunner's needed glasses, sometimes I wonder that myself.

I would not know what feels right or doesn't feel right but I might suggest that better German optics should be accounted for, as well as better German Skill at aiming from having more years of tank fighting experience prior to D-Day.

Very interesting post

thanks

-tom w

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

<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>

[Doug Beman]

Please, no equations. The whole reason I went to college was so I wouldn't have to go to school anymore.

DjB

[Guest Big Time Software]

From a discussion a long time ago I remember some source being dug up that said it took roughly three shots to score a hit. And this was from a reasonably calm and experienced crew in normal combat conditions. If this was average, then that means a lot of tankers had to miss a heck of a lot more times than 3 And why is it that we are not seeing doubts and gripes about hits scored on the very FIRST shot by your own tankers? Selective memories I would suspect

Laws of averages is just that. I find that 3 shots for a hit is pretty much exactly what I see. As Charles said, we do not use fudged CRTs that can be tweaked this way and that, but rather a lot of very complicated physics instead. And Doug, don't worry. We will never post our equations

Steve

[Sgt.Morgue]

Okay folks , this is a very interesting thread. i was a combat tank gunner for the US during the 60s ,and taught tank gunnery to my cavalry squadron later. And nerves play a big part expesically in combat. There is one thing every tank gunner should know and put into pratice it is call 'burst on target' or BOT. After a first round miss where ever that round hit in your sights, you see a burst, taking that point on your sights and moving it to the target ,the second round should hit and usely does.

And Steve and Charles the sounds are great in the new demo and i understand they are even better in the game , but for the americans you have a command yelled that is never heard on the battle field and that is

'forward march' in the beta demo 'go go go' was used which is more realistic combat order.

[John Kettler]

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

Tommi said:

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bullethead,

Your comments about the dust cloud thrown up by the antitank gun's muzzle blast are correct, but there are some other aspects which figure in.

First of all, that cloud tends to reveal the antitank gun's position--decidedly unhealthy for the crew.

Second, measures were employed specifically to combat this problem, especially in ambushes and prepared defenses. The most common one was pouring used motor oil on the ground in front of the muzzle. This effectively suppressed the dust. Water could be used if available, just as it is used to this day on construction sites to hold down the dust. Another simple, effective approach was to simply stake down a tarp in front of the gun.

All of these would get the job done and greatly increase the survivability of the antitank gun and crew, especially when combined with emplacements and camouflage. Of course, the muzzle blast dust cloud was a nonissue after a rain and at certain times of year.

Regards,

John Kettler

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-17-2000).]

[Renaud]

This is off-topic for this thread but I have to chime in and second Sgt.Morgue's observation on the 'forward march' command being yelled by some american nco. This is a bit goofy considering these guys must be aware they left the parade ground a while back. Maybe it's the green squads doing it.

I'll bet if I look hard enough I can find that .wav file and delete it. This won't screw the game up will it?

Thanks,

Ren

[Guest Big Time Software]

I wouldn't go deleting files if I were you Simply find one you like better, copy it, and then replace the one you don't like. This means you will hear that one twice as often, but the game won't have a heart attack if it can't find a file

Of course, you can always put in your own home made WAV files

Steve

[tss]

PanzerLeader asked:

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

In a book ("Panttipataljoona" by Jokipii). The book details the history of Finnish Waffen-SS volunteers. The author collected a vast amount of primary sources: diaries, letters, and memoirs. About 1/3 of the whole book is composed of quotes.

The diaries are particularly interesting. One long quote (too long to be written here) tells of battle of Zemeljanka (6.11.1941) when Soviet 132. Armored Brigade counterattacked against the Westland regiment of SS-Div Wiking. The writer (2nd Lieuteneant Ahti Paikkala) describes his first encounter with both T-34s and Katjushas on the same day. It was interesting to note that Germans didn't initially believe that Soviets could have designed Katjusha themselves and thought that they were imported from USA.

The book has also some interesting evaluations of SS performance. In particular, a long quote from a report that Captain Y.P. Kaila wrote during Summer '42 to Finnish government. I will post that quote when I have time to write it, but it can be summarized to following points:

1) SS-troops have very high morale and excellent equipment; but

2) SS-troops are poorly trained and they have to resort wasteful human-wave tactics in combat.

When writing his evaluation, Kaila had served in Wiking from the start of the campaign. It was his third war as he had fought in Spain and in Winter War.

- Tommi

[s bakker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And why is it that we are not seeing doubts and gripes about hits scored on the very FIRST shot by your own tankers? Selective memories I would suspect <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember one of my shermans in a Reisberg PBEM game. It was happily cruising the countryside when suddenly, a until then, concealed 88 took a shot at it.

The sherman stopped, swung its turret and took a single shot knocking out the 88 before it even had time for a second shot at the sherman!

Needless to say my PBEM opponent had a fit over this ....

Grtz S Bakker

[Fionn]

Car12 ( aka Colin() is PBEMing VoT with me. I'm the Germans.

Well, he took my 75mm AT Pillbox out with his FIRST SHOT OF THE GAME *sigh*.

It's a bell-shaped curve guys. First round hits aren't all that common but neither are misses after 3 or 4 shots. Do both happen? yes. Do they happen often? No.

Is that as it should be? Yes.

[Guest tom w]

Well I thought I had suggested that it was very lucky to have a Sherman take out 2 StuG's with the first shot in the same one minute turn in CE, I'm not actually griping about that, but I would say that the odds of a first shot hit should be less and the odds of a third shot hit should be greater. Now that is just my opinion and it clearly is not backed up by any data or facts or figures.

I would say IMHO that there should be less first shot hits and the odds of a third shot hit should be greater than 80% . At %80 there is a 1 in 5 chance that a third shot hit will miss.

So my point is for fewer first round shots should hit and I would suggest say a %90 to %95 chance of a third shot hit. that woudl be then a 1 in 10 or a 1 in 20 chance of a miss.

Again, I'm not refering to the results of the hit.

I feel that the result of the hit, penetration, ricoche, , penetration w/ no result, gun hit, track hit and KO are ALL VERY well modeled, I know this may sound contradictory but I think the odds of what happens when the result of the hit are determined feel right (at least to me anyway).

I would say there are too many first shot hits and too many many third shot Misses, 20% (1 in 5) chance of a miss at 300m meters on the third shot after the target has been bracketed by two previous shots seems a little punitive to me.

But thats the way it is, and I do accept it.

its STILL a VERY FUN game to play

Luck still counts for alot when it comes to

rounds that KO tanks, and so its still like rolling the dice in board games except now you don't get to "feel" the dice

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

And why is it that we are not seeing doubts and gripes about hits scored on the very FIRST shot by your own tankers? Selective memories I would suspect

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

<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 Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by s bakker:

Needless to say my PBEM opponent had a fit over this ....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As did I when in a PBEM of Riesberg one of my 88s opened up on a Sherman on about 700m and managed to hit four or five times, with no penetration. Guess that's what you get for relying on slave labour in your factories... OTOH, I killed the Tiger in LD by a frontal hit from a Bazooka on a distance of 74m. Both were freak occurences that have not been repeated.

From my limited experience, the curve feels fine to me and when Fionn says the same with his amount of games under the belt, I would tend to believe him.

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

Andreas

[Guest entec]

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

It's a bell-shaped curve guys.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be the shape of the distribution curve of shots hitting, but not the curve of the accuracy as a function of the number of shots.

Also is there a way to prevent the pillboxes and MG bunkers from firing. Assigning them ambush targets does not seem to work.

And it seems that AVF that cannot be targeted unless you have a LOS to the center of the model, so that AVFs that are part way behind a building cannot be hit.

[Guest tom w]

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

And it seems that AVF that cannot be targeted unless you have a LOS to the center of the model, so that AVFs that are part way behind a building cannot be hit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi entec

That is correct. LOS is to the center of the unit, unless more than 50% of the unit is visible to the targeting unit the AFV is not a valid target. I do not think that is unrealistic. If you are new to this game you should also realize the AFVs that are not flaming and smoking (Live ones or KO'd ones) also do NOT block LOS or LOF and this has been discussed to death.

AFV's behind buildings are ALL or nothing, if more than %50 sticks out there is valid LOF, if less than %50 percent is visible then No LOF.

You should know you can fire right through your AFVs and Through non-flaming enemy AFVs to hit other targets. This is not news, its the way the game works.

-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 05-16-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

This was such an informative thread I thought I would re-visit it and re-read it and bump it to the top for anyone new to the Game.

All people new to this game could benefit from the insights in this thread.

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Sabot]

****Im sure many of you know me by my initial post on this forum. I read many posts on the SSI forums and TGN by CM people slaming CC before I retaliated, both there and here. I will order CM, not because I like it, but because I support the direction the company (BTS) is taking in regards to marketing. I drink up $50 of beer easily throughout a week. The money will not hurt me. And it may, just may grow on me. Please accept the following information as somewhat of a peace offering.

****Ive been a loader, driver, gunner and TC on every version of the M1 series of tanks. Two NATO Candian Army Trophy Teams, Fulda gap, Desert Storm. Im the highest scoring gunner from 3rd Brigade 3rd Armored Div in the gulf. I worked with the then head of the weapons dept of the Master Gunner School, Ft Knox, SFC Tadlock, on developing alternate engagement methods (TIS/Daylight) for the the M1A1. Ive busted alot of big bullets. But enough about me...

****The tank gun error budget is a list of the possible error sources that can effect the accuracy of a ballisic projectile. It includes the influences of hardware, environmental conditions and human factors.

It is divided into 3 categories:

1. Fixed bias- which includes the errors of flaws in ammunition and fire control systems manufacture, as well as physics such as Parallax (the offset differnce between the boreline and the various optical sights), ballistic drift of spin-stabilized rounds, and mean jump (the difference between the boreline and the line of departure amoung various rounds).

2. Variable bias- errors which may vary from occasion to occasion. Such as Cant(un-horizontal gun trunion), Wind, muzzle velocity variations (damaged rifling,tube wear,ammo temperature, Tube Memory(firing diffrent type of ammo on the following shot), Air temperature, Muzzle displacement due to thermal bending (heating and cooling of the gun tube)and gun tube droop (gravitational pull of the gun tube downward due to lenth and weight). Air Density (barometric pressure), Optical path bending (Illusion of movement created by solar radiation) and Jump (the angular difference between the predicted launch angle and the actual launch angle ie. recoil effects).

3. Random error- Round to round dispersion (no two rounds, even from the same lot #s, ever fly exactly the same), Gunner lay error (aiming wrong), Burst on Target aquisition (the speed of certain rounds makes it difficult to observe the round inflight or after impact from the firing gun), errors in Zeroing, errors in boresighting.

****The main point Im trying to make is there are SO many things that can go wrong when firing a shot. A bad boresight and you turn from a tanker to a coffin pilot. When firing on plywood training targets, a APFSDS round just leaves a small round hole in the wood. But Ive seen sabots go through a target sideways and leave the silluette of the projectile as an imprint in the target. Why? Because for some reason the ass-end (fins) of the round broke off in flight somewhere. What about an engagement on the move; troops pop up first at say 300m. Coax---bRAAAP BRAAAAAP Brraaaap. Then a main gun target pops.Target Cease Fire Gunner Sabot tank Identified Up Fire On the Way....BRaaraaaap. Oh ****! I forgot to switch from coax to main gun. Happens all the time and vice versa (main to coax). Even in modern tank companys there are tanks which are just known as "Bad tanks". Theres always some gremlin screwing up something on them. I dont know how the hit percentages are done in CM, but at WWII ranges (Usually 800m or less) with WWII balistic sights, it may be like you said...a crap shoot. Thats why what really got me going was this "my data is better than your data" stuff Kwazydog was spouting on TGN.

****Anyways.....happy Hunting, you Turn-Basers!

[Guest Germanboy]

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

****Anyways.....happy Hunting, you Turn-Basers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welcome to the board Sabot, good to have you on the board - I am sure that this time the reception will be a bit more, shall we say, open.

And always good to get input from somebody with real life experience.

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

Andreas

edited b/c I stupidly forgot to shorten the quote

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 06-17-2000).]

[Maximus]

Just a couple things on the difference between CC and CM.

CM combines turn-based games and real-time games into one. There are problems when you only have one of these in terms of realism and gameplay.

The problem with turn-based games is that they are generally the IGO-UGO systems (with hopefully "op-fire"). This is usually not very realistic.

The problem of real-time games is that they tend to be "click-fests" as we all have heard. But it is true, whether you like it or not. As with wargames or any strategy game, how can you use sound tactics when you're constantly trying to scoll around the board issueing orders to units when the units should already know what to do anyway?

That's why games like Warzone 2100, StarCraft, and C&C tend to use the ol' cliche if the "tank rush". The human side usually sits at their base building a mass of troops while the AI sends 2 or 3 units at a time. Then once the human player has a big enough force, he goes on a killing spree. Then if his force gets decimated then he has to start all over again.

CM uses a combination of both turn-based gameplay and realtime gameplay. The turn-based gameplay is really more like just a pause in the action while both sides can issue orders. And the real-time aspect is the playing of the CPU calculated movie of what happens in conjucture with your orders--except that you have no control over your troops during this 60 seconds of real-time played out. But that is where CM's tac-AI comes into play. The tac-AI takes control of your units and does whatever is necessary for them to survive (or not). Now in a real-time game like CC, you would probably have to issue individual orders to get your troops do what CM's tac-AI has already done for you. It does things like switch targets when a higher threat is near, just like any normal soldier would do. ie. You wouldn't want a squad to keep firing at a MG that is 300m away when an enemy squad pops up just 30m away, now would you?

And while you don't have control over your men directly during the movie is like simulating that you can't issue orders to every single unit on the CC board all at once.

So therefore, CM is a IGO/UGO-WEGO system. I saw some comments made on the SSI forum that veteran CC players couldn't "get-into" the game as far as immersion factor. Well, I don't know about you, but when you can get right down on the field at eye level with your troops as the run for cover as the bullets fly, there is plenty of immersion factor there, trust me.

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

"I for one, am pretty damn close to Genius"--Ol' Blood & Maximus

[Maximus]

Was there really any need to quote his whole post, Andreas??

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

"I for one, am pretty damn close to Genius"--Ol' Blood & Maximus

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Was there really any need to quote his whole post, Andreas??

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I just edited, but thanks for reminding me.

Was there any need to get into this whole RTS-Turn debate again as a response to an informative post?

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

Andreas

[JWorthing]

For what it's worth, my stug in ce (pbem)

took out two shermans in the same turn with one shot each. Got real lucky in that one.

[Mikeydz]

Max. I know you don't have to, but why not edit that post and delete it.

A. It's off topic for this thread

B. We just got over the big brew haw ove CC vs CM, RT vs "Turn Based".

C. Sabot not only posted a very civil message, he posted an *EXCELLENT* message dealing with the topics at hand.

Please consider this out of courtesy.

Mikey

[Guest Big Time Software]

Sabot,

Thanks for coming back again and posting your thoughtful message. We probably didn't come across this way at first but I think you'll find that most people here are really appreciative of those who have firsthand military experience and the ability to communicate it well, like you just did. I know I've learned a lot here on the forum over the past year or so.

(And if we ever do a modern version of CM I might just be sending you an email full of questions, heh heh )

And FWIW, I don't think Maximus was trying to rekindle a CM/CC flamewar. I think he was just trying to clear up the (possible?) misunderstanding that CM is a pure turn-based game. It's really a turn-based/realtime hybrid.

Charles