moving targets

[moosehead]

I would have to say that the chance of hitting a moving target( tanks, HT whatever) should be very low. Especially if it is moving across the field of view, and at high speed( 25-35 mph). Not to mention being 500 + m away.

I find that the number of times a moving target gets hit, is too high. And the 1 hit wonders, should be very rare.

This would require shooting with "lead". How easy would that be with a stationary gun. I even think it would be extremely difficult with a tank turret, of that time period.

Anyone got facts to prove how easy or difficult it is to hit a moving target.

[JasonC]

A 1km ranges and up, or shooting at targets actually moving 30 mph, it probably would be hard to hit, especially with first shots. But cross country tanks speeds in WW II are more like 10-15 mph, not 30. They only do 30 on flat roads, going straight, which incidentally makes the lead rather easier, since you can see the road and the speed is tolerably constant. And CM shots are generally at 500m or less, which is quite close for tank guns.

The shell arrives in half a second to one second at those sorts of ranges. And 10-15 mph is ~5 meters per second. The distance a tank traveling cross-country moves in the flight time of a high-velocity AT shell at close range, is thus 2-3 meters, which is less than the length of the tank itself. And if the direction of movement is diagonal to the direction of fire, the distance moved across is somewhat less, by a cosine. Not a lot of leading necessary.

A medium velocity gun at 1.5 km firing on a target traveling at ~20 mph, yeah the target could move 15-20 meters, or 10-15 across the shell path perhaps, and make accurate leads essential. And at that range, estimating target speed can be difficult.

The point is, you'd expect to see significant increases in the number of misses due to motion, out at longer ranges, with lower velocity guns, crossing at right angles, and moving fast, like at road speeds or recon light armor top speeds. Under 500 meters, tank guns, cross-country tank speeds, approaching angles - there would be relatively little impact from movement. Maybe 1/3rd of the shots aimed slightly off center of mass would miss that would have hit a stationary target - something like that.

I think a bigger problem exists in CM treating of firing -while- moving, which almost everyone says was impractical in reality. Machineguns could spray, but to hit anything with a tank gun, a short halt was necessary, gyro or no. The gyro helped lay the gun faster after such a halt, that was about it.

Whereas in CM, Stuarts and M-8s routinely hit targets 500 meters away while the shooters are moving, which is not in the least believable. The difference, of course, is the gun is pointing every which way as a vehicle bounces over uneven ground, so it is not just a question of distance moved, but direction pointed.

[Michael Emrys]

One thing I have found strikingly odd is the inability of tank and gun crews (at least those of regular experience) to the get the right lead on moving personnel units, even at ranges of 200 meters or less. The shell always seems to fall about 5-10 meters behind them.

Michael

[Cpl Carrot]

That would be because they are firing HE, which means they don't have to hit the target. (But it is frustrating, especially when its a panzershreck or like)

[Cpl Carrot]

Moosehead.

Every one knows that one in a million chances occur nine times in ten

But yes there have been impresive shots taken , especially with field guns. Now if only the wind was blowing, then we would see their true skill

[Gyrene]

It all also depends on the muzzle velocity of the gun, try to hit anything moving with an M8 HMC or a 75mm pack howitzer (Same gun).

Michael Emrys, I agree with what you are saying by the overshooting of troops, perhaps the AI is trying to actually hit the troops with the HE rounds, instead of the the ground at their feet?

Gyrene

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Whereas in CM, Stuarts and M-8s routinely hit targets 500 meters away while the shooters are moving, which is not in the least believable. The difference, of course, is the gun is pointing every which way as a vehicle bounces over uneven ground, so it is not just a question of distance moved, but direction pointed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely. I have used the M8 Greyhound and the Stuart and they hit on the run (FAST) VERY well. Problably unrealistically well while traveling fast over uneven terrain in the heat of battle while being shot at.

I would encourage Steve and Charles to look at this issue for CM2 I don't know much at all about Russian or German versions or weapon's systems analogous to the Allied Gyrostabilizer but if either nation has such a secret weapon I hope it is not modeled like the Allied Gyrostabilizer in the Stuart and Sherman, that gizmo ALMOST seems to ADD chance to hit percentages while the tank is moving making it seemingly easier to get a hit while on the move than standing still.

This is issue was brought up and debated long ago and Steve and Charles have told us they had some source of actual historically accurate test fire data on which they used to model the behaviour and chance to hit percentages of the Allied Gyrostabilizer. So this issue has been debated a great deal some time ago.

I am still of the opinion that Allied units with gyrostabilizers have an unrealistically high chance to hit percentage while moving modeled in the game based on the questionable advantage the gryostabilizer is alledged to have afforded the Allied tank crews (if they did not disable the device as some here have suggested was the routine practice of most tank crews) (to be fair it has also been suggested here that some BIG General Liek Patton or somebody gave a universal order that ALL tanks in his command were to have fully functioning gyrostabiliers before entering combat, and that all disabled units were to be fixed and functional before combat)

Anyway lets see how this is dealt with in CM2, but generally there should be a MUCH larger penalty in the chance to hit percentage modeled for tanks on the move.

-tom w

[Michael Emrys]

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

Michael Emrys, you agree with what you are saying by the overshooting of troops, perhaps the AI is trying to actually hit the troops with the HE rounds, instead of the the ground at their feet?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. How does that effect the case when the target units are moving laterally across the firing unit's LOS? Otherwise, I think you've got a good point and I will watch for that.

Michael

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Gyrene]

Michael, if the AI is trying to actually hit the troops with the HE, it would make hitting moving targets even more difficult, as if you were to simply hit the ground somewhere near the troops, the "horseshoes and hand grenades" (i.e. close enough) effect would come into play.

But as it is the AI ends up overshooting most of the time, esp. with rapid firing AA guns.

Infantry doesn't seem to suffer from the same easy-target malady that affects vehicles, I'm sure you've seen before how broken squads or HQ units seem almost impossible to hit even at close ranges when they are fleeing.

No such luck with FT's or AT teams, even broken ones, they seem to be wearing some sort of magnetic suit, or at the very least they have different Patron Saints from other infantry.

Gyrene