Chad Harrison Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 on big explanation needer here, im just looking for some real world insight. in CM, at long ranges, once a regular AT gun is sighted it seems that they have a very hard time hitting their targets but tanks seem to bracket them a lot faster. i know that for a tank its somewhat easier to knock out the gun becuase all he has to do is get close with a HE round. it just seems that guns in battles have a hard time hitting home at 800m+ ranges. and boy they get spotted fast at that range! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Concussion Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 Hmmmm... I noticed that tanks are easier to hit, but harder to destroy (or at least that's what i think). Guns seem to fire far less often, especcialy when being fired at. It could be because they are much more open, and troops have to be more careful. It's just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 I hate stating the obvious, but... ... the towed guns are unarmoued except for maybe a small front shield. They simply don't like all that metal and woods splinters flying around after a HE impact, and their crews don't like it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted November 30, 2001 Author Share Posted November 30, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: ... the towed guns are unarmoued except for maybe a small front shield. They simply don't like all that metal and woods splinters flying around after a HE impact, and their crews don't like it either.<hr></blockquote> yes that would fall into the obvious section. you can see that even looking at them in CM. the reason that i brought this up was from my ASL experiences. i never had military time, so i havnt fired anything bigger than a 30-06. but in ASL it was a WHOLE lot easier to hit a tank than a gun, ESPECIALLY anything larger than a halftrack. the guns had all sorts of bonus' in their favor (even after they fired, they remained with a ? for sooo long). so this is a product of me trying to figure out how it really is. because it was hard in ASL to take out a gun. in CM it seems much easier. is anyone more familiar with how hard it was to hit a tank at about 800m? from what i know, 500m is what tankers practice the most at back then. i just cant force my mind to agree with how the gun always seems to miss time after time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 There are huge threads on hit probability, I woulnd't like to see them start all over again. My end impression was that up to 1500 or 2000 meters CMBO is on the lower end of "fine". Especially, very small ranges don't make for very sure hits in reality. The only thing missing is exceptionally excellent crews which existed in reality and messed up the avarage of AARs. As for guns, guns are mostly hurt in CMBO because of absolute spotting. If a gun opens fire on a tank while it has LOS to that tank and three infantry units in the area, and one of the infantry units spots the gun, then the tank knows where the gun is. In reality the tank wouldn't get that information from an infantry unit far away. It oocurs to me that other games reduced spottabiliy of guns to balance that, but then you have a problem if a gun fires on a tank while that tank is the only enemy unit in sight. Then the lone tank would have an unfair low chance to spot the gun. A really stupid hack would be to make AT guns less spottable by infantry units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted November 30, 2001 Author Share Posted November 30, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: There are huge threads on hit probability, I woulnd't like to see them start all over again. My end impression was that up to 1500 or 2000 meters CMBO is on the lower end of "fine". Especially, very small ranges don't make for very sure hits in reality. The only thing missing is exceptionally excellent crews which existed in reality and messed up the avarage of AARs.<hr></blockquote> lets not kick those dead horses and just let them rest in peace. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As for guns, guns are mostly hurt in CMBO because of absolute spotting. If a gun opens fire on a tank while it has LOS to that tank and three infantry units in the area, and one of the infantry units spots the gun, then the tank knows where the gun is. In reality the tank wouldn't get that information from an infantry unit far away. It oocurs to me that other games reduced spottabiliy of guns to balance that, but then you have a problem if a gun fires on a tank while that tank is the only enemy unit in sight. Then the lone tank would have an unfair low chance to spot the gun.<hr></blockquote> that might explain why squad leader did what they did. absolute spotting is a factor into them being spotted so fast. in reality, i would presume that a good gun crew could get off two or three shots before the tank was even able to identify where the gun crew was. all too often in CM, they fire once and suddenly the world comes down on them! thanks for the comments redwolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted December 1, 2001 Share Posted December 1, 2001 "which is harder to hit: a tank or a gun?" Answer: Neither, that is if the gun is on the tank. I tell ya, gun hits happen way too often. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 The question is very good regarding why one ruleset makes knocking out ATG alot harder than another. Is one ruleset right and the other not so right, or is it that no one really knows the answer for sure, and both efforts are based on the designers perspective. If an unbuttoned 75mm armed Sherman during 1944 spots a dug-in 75mm Pak in Advanced Squad Leader at 300m, they can use area fire (spray HE all over the place) or try for direct placement of a round close enough to impact crew or gun in a large way. --------------------------------------------- AREA FIRE OPTION +1 to TO HIT roll due to gun size, and +2 emplacement modifier once hit. So potentially effective shot on 42% of first try shots. If the Pak crew has a morale of 8 and no leader the chance for broken or eliminated result is 11%. Area fire succeeds in doing something major on about 5% of first shot tries, with second and third shot impact chances of 6% and 8%. ----------------------------------------------- INFANTRY TARGET TYPE +3 modifier on first shot try due to emplacement and gun size, for 17% possibly effective hit probability on first heave-to. Chance for something major from first shot is 25%, for combined first shot hit and "do something" probability of 4%. One second and third shots against ATG overall impact chance climbs to 7% and 11%. ----------------------------------------------- A dug-in anti-tank gun is one tough target type in Advanced Squad Leader. Why? When one aims at a tank they are shooting for the middle of the vertical and lateral mass, and if the range estimation is a little high or low there is about the same probability of hitting. With a ground target, HE effect tends to be infront of and to the side of the explosion so if one is a little long the effect is greatly reduced. The loss of effect due to a long shot is not quite halved but close for discussion purposes. If one is shooting at a tank at 300m range and one is off in the range estimation by 100m (33% error), a hit will still occur. If one drops an HE round 100m in front of a dug-in ATG, or 100m behind the gun, the crew will probably not be impacted too much (unless their ammo reserve coincided with the HE shell hit). Even if the range estimation for an HE shot is close to actual, up-and-down random dispersion of the shot may carry the round far from the target. What HE can do against dug-in ATG is raise enough dust and earth to lower the ATG rate-of-fire or suppress the crew, while the Sherman peppers the area with explosive rounds. When visibility between ATG and tank is reduced due to exploding ground hits in between the two, the tank has the advantage. We have not done the ballistics analysis to see if a Sherman firing on a dug-in anti-tank gun at 300m would have such low impact probabilities as ASL predicts. Since lateral spread of the HE shots is bound to be small at 300m, one could increase HE accuracy by walking HE onto the target and then keep the rounds hitting in front of or to the side of the gun. A Sherman might also be able to use ricochet HE fire to negate the some of the emplacement modifier (air bursts at an altitude above the gun shield stand a better chance of hitting some gun crew members). We will do some analysis and see what a reasonable To Hit probability would be. Thanks for raising a very interesting issue. [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted December 2, 2001 Author Share Posted December 2, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford: The question is very good regarding why one ruleset makes knocking out ATG alot harder than another. Is one ruleset right and the other not so right, or is it that no one really knows the answer for sure, and both efforts are based on the designers perspective.<hr></blockquote> thanks for the great post! i was going to dig out my ASL charts, but they we are in the process of moving. your point was my point, in ASL the gun has the advantage. in CM, it would appear that the tank has the advantage. i had not thought of the dirt that would be kicked up by the explosions, and that is a good point. looks like the world will never know which one represents it better. ill go back to counting the licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop so atleast one mystery will be solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 My previous post brought out the low probability of a single Sherman knocking out a 75mm Pak with aimed HE on one shot. Shermans would get a 1-in-6 chance of a second shot per turn, and if three or four Shermans gang up on the ATG the odds become reasonable. One Sherman against one dug-in 75mm Pak in ASL is a low success situation. One Sherman with a platoon of infantry against a dug-in 75mm Pak, or five Shermans with a few squads of garand toting troopers, becomes a better scenario. I might also add that ASL bases HE punch on shell diameter, so 76mm HE and 90mm HE is more effective in ASL than Sherman 75mm HE. It is now well known that Sherman 75mm HE packed more punch per ounce than U.S. 76mm and 90mm HE (75mm HE has higher fragment density at all ranges, and very close to 105mm HE fragment density close to the 75mm explosiion), so ASL may very well underestimate 75mm HE performance. Russian 76.2mm HE packs as much or more HE filler than 85mm HE, so one might also expect 76.2mm HE to be under-rated in ASL (76.2 HE would be more effective than 85mm HE in terms of fragment density). CMBO gives Sherman 75mm HE greater effectiveness than 76mm HE, which may also account for difference in game results (I think 75mm HE should be closer to 90mm HE rating, but that is a dead horse that should not be kicked anymore). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Five Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jshandorf: "which is harder to hit: a tank or a gun?" Answer: Neither, that is if the gun is on the tank. I tell ya, gun hits happen way too often. Jeff<hr></blockquote> Having never gunned on a WWII tank I cannot speak from experience as to how often gun hits should happen. However, I have gunned on an M1A1. The way CM models gun hits is a little more obtuse then it probably should be i.e. gun hits should not always totally disable the gun. Perhaps leave the gun active but with greatly reduced accuracy. This could simulate the gunner’s primary sight being disabled or the guns boresight being knocked out of whack. (Boresight is not an actual sight but it is basically how tankers refer to the alignment of their sighting system and the actual place where the gun itself is looking) On modern tanks it is a fairly complicated process to boresight a tank and not all that interesting so I won't go in to that. Several battlefield conditions can affect a tanks boresight that have nothing to do with damage (barometric pressure, temperature, ammo temperature, how many rounds have been fired and how quickly, cant, etc). Damage to a tank could easily misalign the tanks sights, but still leave the gun operational (Think about whacking your favorite hunting rifle on a tree a few times and then shooting it). Unlike a hunting rifle tank rounds usually kick up a nice dust cloud or make something blow up so the point of aim/point of impact difference is a little easier to see and correct for. Perhaps CM will model this in the future. I‘ve had to walk rounds on to a target when my ballistic computer crapped out. After you do it once it is fairly easy to get rounds on target quickly once you figure out the “Kentucky Windage” to apply. You can still hit targets but the system of engagement becomes more like direct fire artillery. Hope this helps. BlackFive [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Black Five ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 The aspect of ASL that gives emplaced guns a BIG advantage is that the dice roll analysis to see if they lose concealment status if they fire in enemy LOS. If a dug-in and hidden 75mm Pak fires on advancing Shermans at 300m in full view of some American units (say a small infantry recon unit sent in advance of the tank unit), there is a 67% chance the ATG will still be concealed. Concealed units can be fired on but they are more difficult to hit. We ran 12 ASL scenario's where 5 Shermans advanced on one hidden 75mm Pak, and the Shermans pulled to a halt at 300m after the initial shots were fired. On average, the ATG got 3.6 Shermans per scenario (scenario stops when all Shermans are knocked out or the gun crew is broken/gun malfunctions). In six scenario's out of twelve, the Shermans got the gun crew, or the gun malfunctioned and the crew broke morale before they fixed the gun, while suffering an average of 2.2 Shermans lost. In six scenario's the ATG got all 5 Shermans before they got the gun. The Shermans were the beneficiencies of some really good and unusually low dice rolls, so in most games the gun would get all the Shermans. Can a 75mm ATG fire from a dug-in position and still retain some fairly substantial benefits from concealment in terms of being difficult to precisely pinpoint for HE and machine gun fire? Maybe if the ATG was using smokeless and flashless ammo, but the ASL rules for concealed ATG apply in the same way to U.S., Russian, British and Italian ammo. Advantage to guns in ASL: even if they fire from a hidden emplaced position at a Sherman platoon 100m directly facing them, the gun can (regardless of smoke/flash tendencies) still retain some concealment benefits with the right dice rolls. Sounds right? My read on ASL is that concealment is lost if any good order enemy unit is in LOS and 640 meters of firing ATG and the dice roll is 5 or 6 on the colored dice. So stray infantry have the ability to instantly report the position of units to everyone. Is this correct, ASL fans? [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 Please note that my morning calculation for ASL HE against dug-in ATG should have been 25% effect after a hit, and 17% hit probability, combining for 4% on first try, 7% on second and 11% on third. The chance of landing HE close enough to an ATG to do something in ASL, and then have it do something, is REALLY SMALL. Seems like one would be better off having all machine guns blazing away at once (bow, turret and turret top mounted). Against a dug-in ATG, using all three machine guns on a Sherman would break the ATG crew 17% of the time, which appears to be the best way to go about breaking the morale of an ATG crew. My computer program for the above calculations is giving me problems. The above figures are after the spreadsheet was corrected (and were checked using my hand calculator) but should still be treated as draft until I am sure all the bugs are out. Thanks. [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: rexford ] [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallimakhos Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 One aspect I don't think has been mentioned: once a gun has been spotted, a tank can often KO it safely, without LOS. Just area target close to enemy gun. Of course one needs experience and luck to find the right position for the tank. I've lost a quite few guns this way. Do I hear the word "gamey" somewhere...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford: Seems like one would be better off having all machine guns blazing away at once (bow, turret and turret top mounted). Against a dug-in ATG, using all three machine guns on a Sherman would break the ATG crew 17% of the time, which appears to be the best way to go about breaking the morale of an ATG crew.<hr></blockquote> I think I've seen a quote somewhere saying this actually was the way tankers were encouraged to deal with AT guns. Use MG's, not the main gun. As usual, I have no sources and I'm not even too sure I've seen such a note.. -- edit. Oh yeah. Forgot to add. I think the gun vs tank modeling in CM is dead on. Guns fire as fast and accurately as tanks, unless under fire. The only problem is the ease in which guns are spotted. Absolute spotting or not. On occasion I've seen the target lines swoop at the gun immediately as it comes out of hiding. Before the first shot even... [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Jarmo ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 The problem with tank machine guns is range. ASL gives the bow machine gun on a tank 320 meters normal range, and 480m for coaxial MG. Beyond that range firepower factors are halved. When Shermans meet up with 88mm Flak guns at 2000m, the Shermans have to resort to the HE, which reportedly was effective in dealing with the monster flak guns in Nord Afrika. Within 300m or so it seems best to use machine guns in ASL, and maybe in "real life". Having a good machine gun atop the turret probably helped Sherman crews alot, Band of Brothers showed Sherman commanders manning the AA machine gun during a counter-attack on a German position. Would an exposed tank commander firing the AA machine gun from OUTSIDE the turret (standing on rear hull deck) detract from the tanks command control? The Band of Brothers episode seemed to have the commander standing on the deck as he fired, as opposed to within an open hatch. [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 best was to take out anti-tank guns is with mortars if possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: looks like the world will never know which one represents it better. ill go back to counting the licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop so atleast one mystery will be solved.<hr></blockquote> 527, Although I suppose tongue size and pressure would effect this number some... [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Red Dog ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts