Back to the topic : Doubts in CM

[Scipio]

Folks, because my other threat was locked for some people who starts an absolutly off topic discussion, let's restart it here.

SO, I guess my doubts about the vulnerability of tanks is solved, that leaves us with the minefields...

And here's another thing I've noticed :

a) a gun or mortar (on-map) can be 'knocked-out' or 'abandoned'. Okay, when it's knocked out, it's kaput, the crew brews coffee and eat some Butterbrot (=sandwich). But what is an abandoned gun? I guess it's still operable, but the crew has run for cover, cause the situation was a little bit to hot. Why can't they return to the gun later when the situation has cooled down?

I noticed that crews of support weapons usually try to flee with their heavy weapons. That's very unrealistic, IMO, especially when they are in open country. The first thing they would do is to throw away the mortar/gun/machinegun etcetera and run for their lives, maybe to try later to man their abandoned guns.

c) why can a machinegun not be knocked out with a surviving crew? Is a MG not so vulnerable like a 60mm mortar?

d) Maybe a surviving crew would be able to man the weapon of another - maybe killed or routed - crew? Maybe they could even man an abandoned enemy gun? I guess if you once have learned to use a fieldgun, mortar, MG, you can use also a captured weapon of this type - maybe with smaller effeciency (depending on the 'new' crews quality). I could imagine this has happend often, especially on the level of a CM game. Capturing enemy equipment could also improve the endresult - the enemy hasn't only lost that gun, it will be also used against him in another battle! This could open some new horizons...

[russellmz]

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

Folks, because my other threat was locked for some people who starts an absolutly off topic discussion, let's restart it here.

SO, I guess my doubts about the vulnerability of tanks is solved, that leaves us with the minefields...

And here's another thing I've noticed :

a) a gun or mortar (on-map) can be 'knocked-out' or 'abandoned'. Okay, when it's knocked out, it's kaput, the crew brews coffee and eat some Butterbrot (=sandwich). But what is an abandoned gun? I guess it's still operable, but the crew has run for cover, cause the situation was a little bit to hot. Why can't they return to the gun later when the situation has cooled down?

I noticed that crews of support weapons usually try to flee with their heavy weapons. That's very unrealistic, IMO, especially when they are in open country. The first thing they would do is to throw away the mortar/gun/machinegun etcetera and run for their lives, maybe to try later to man their abandoned guns.

c) why can a machinegun not be knocked out with a surviving crew? Is a MG not so vulnerable like a 60mm mortar?

d) Maybe a surviving crew would be able to man the weapon of another - maybe killed or routed - crew? Maybe they could even man an abandoned enemy gun? I guess if you once have learned to use a fieldgun, mortar, MG, you can use also a captured weapon of this type - maybe with smaller effeciency (depending on the 'new' crews quality). I could imagine this has happend often, especially on the level of a CM game. Capturing enemy equipment could also improve the endresult - the enemy hasn't only lost that gun, it will be also used against him in another battle! This could open some new horizons...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i still think the jeeps thing is funny looking: a 500lb lands among 6 jeeps and all the 1 man crews survive.

[Slapdragon]

The answer to all of your questions is that your sense of time in the game is messed up.

Games take an average of 30 minutes sim time. During that time some events are common, and simulated (like firing weapons, breaking, rallying, calling artillery) and some events are rare and may not be simulated because they normally did not occur over a set period of time.

First off, there is no guarantee that a weapon left abandoned in the field could be put back into operation in the time span of the game. First, the new crew would have to find the crew served weapon, find ammo left strewn about, and so forth. They would need to have training on the weapon (a mortar operator does not absolutely know how to head space an M2HB). or have enough time to devote to the operation. Then they would have to organize as a team around the new weapon, and put it into action.

Like many things (capturing and using small arms by units, picking up new ammo) the designers obviously felt that the events were rare enough that their time was better spent elseware. This is not a perfect solution, since obviously someone could find and man a mortar, but unlike the original squad leader (GI Anvil of Victory was delayed by months over small details that rarely showed up in actual playing) CM needed to ship rather than have coding for every possible event no matter how rare, on the battlefield.

As for why some units flee with their weapons and other discard them, the difference is if the weapon can be easily carried and employed, and has been discussed before. Notice that a 50mm Mortar crew is far less likely to dump their mortar than an 81mm. That is because it was no big deal to move. The M2HB and the 20mm are the same way. One person can man pack almost all of the weapons that are fled with (although the M2HB is on the outside of this), while all of the weapons that are abandoned require more than one man to pack as a useful unit, or require substantial assembly and disassembly to move.

This is not to say that mgs are not abandoned. They are. Just that a unit which has abandoned its MG is shown as a dead unit. Not every "dead guy" in the game is dead. As has been stated before many are just no longer fighting in an organized fashion and wont start fighting again within the bounds of the game.

[WWB]

One big reason why you cannot 'abandon' MGs is the way they are coded, so Steve has said.

WWB

[dalem]

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

Not every "dead guy" in the game is dead. As has been stated before many are just no longer fighting in an organized fashion and wont start fighting again within the bounds of the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my opinion this is really the key to accepting most of the abstractions in the game. "Killed" also = hiding = ran away = carrying buddies to the rear = done for the day, for some reason. This does not help the issue of lone MG gunners staying in place to be killed, but as has been noted, that's a coding thing, and in the end probably not that important in game terms.

-dale

[Scipio]

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

In my opinion this is really the key to accepting most of the abstractions in the game. "Killed" also = hiding = ran away = carrying buddies to the rear = done for the day, for some reason. This does not help the issue of lone MG gunners staying in place to be killed, but as has been noted, that's a coding thing, and in the end probably not that important in game terms.

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

About this point, I absulotly do NOT agree to you and Slapdragon. Remember the discussion about bayling crews - they are (mostly) also useless on the battlefield, but if they are killed, they count for the endresult. So, a machinegun can be knocked out, but that doesn't mean that I loose a crew, too.

Slapdragon, you are partially right, but just keep in mind what I've written:

a) Experience of the 'new' crew would matter very much. A veteran or better crew may have already experience with the capture weapon.

The crew works with lower efficiency, also depending on the grade of experience.

c) A mortar crew may be able to use another mortar, but surely not to use a fieldgun.

d) The necessary preparations you list can be easy simulated by a longer 'unlimber' period.

Well so much about captured enemy weapons.

About own abandoned weapons, I really don't see a reason why a crew can't return to their weapon when they abandoned it once. Maybe they need an 'unlimber' phase after returning, but then...

About the coding : I propose we don't discuss this. I start this and other threats to deliver and discuss ideas. If some of them find the way into CM2, great, but that is an decision of BTS anyway, so we can spare us the time - agree?

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Andreas]

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

About the coding : I propose we don't discuss this. I start this and other threats to deliver and discuss ideas. If some of them find the way into CM2, great, but that is an decision of BTS anyway, so we can spare us the time - agree?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That makes it a bit difficult to answer your questions and c), since the answer is (you guessed it) 'coding'. Maybe it will be changed, and Steve (IIRC) has acknowledged it is not realistic, but it is fundamentally coding related, so how can you not discuss this?

Regarding abandoned weapons, I believe there is a misunderstanding here. IIRC Steve said over a year ago that abandoned means 'slight damage, can be repaired between battles in operations, but can not be used again within a single battle'. Knocked out means 'can not be used again, since the damage is either terminal, e.g. tank brewed, or so heavy that field workshops can't help it'. Gone.

Using enemy equipment, it is all well to 'I could imagine' that this happened on a CM battle level. I am not so sure, and I have read precious few references to it. Again, the abandoned would mean that the weapon is out of action for this battle anyway, and since it is an enemy weapon, you would not have the spares to repair it between battles in ops. If you can show somewhere that in fact enemy weapons (guns/mortars) were turned around on the enemy on a regular basis, I am sure that BTS will be most interested in this kind of evidence. But the burden of proof would be on you.

If a gun crew routs, it was SOP to render the gun useless, by getting rid of some part of the breech, so even if the crew just ran away, the weapon would still be unusable. Bidermann in 'In deadly combat' relates one such instance, where they were driven off their PAK, but rendered it useless.

[Slapdragon]

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

About this point, I absulotly do NOT agree to you and Slapdragon. Remember the discussion about bayling crews - they are (mostly) also useless on the battlefield, but if they are killed, they count for the endresult. So, a machinegun can be knocked out, but that doesn't mean that I loose a crew, too.

Slapdragon, you are partially right, but just keep in mind what I've written:

a) Experience of the 'new' crew would matter very much. A veteran or better crew may have already experience with the capture weapon.

The crew works with lower efficiency, also depending on the grade of experience.

c) A mortar crew may be able to use another mortar, but surely not to use a fieldgun.

d) The necessary preparations you list can be easy simulated by a longer 'unlimber' period.

Well so much about captured enemy weapons.

About own abandoned weapons, I really don't see a reason why a crew can't return to their weapon when they abandoned it once. Maybe they need an 'unlimber' phase after returning, but then...

About the coding : I propose we don't discuss this. I start this and other threats to deliver and discuss ideas. If some of them find the way into CM2, great, but that is an decision of BTS anyway, so we can spare us the time - agree?

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just an aside, since you said you were trying to improve your language, the word is "thread." A "threat" is a warning of violence to change an opinion. A "thread" is a topic for discussion or a cohesive idea.

The question of course is what the unlimber times would be. If the unlimber time is 120 minutes to employ a captured mortar, is it useful to code into the game? Maybe, maybe not.

Again, I think the short time span is fooling you a bit. I watched an armorer from the Sheriff's last weekend futz with an old pistol for an hour before he could get the lock, safety, and mag release figured out and comfortable. He is an expert and the weapon turned out to be fairly simple to use. What about an antitank gun with a foriegn language written on it?

I am not saying it is impossible, I am just pointing out that employment of captured weapons in the heat of battle is a rare event, rare enough that it gets quite a bit of comment. DSC winner Frank Herbert and MOH winner Audie Murphy both did it, with small arms at least, but even they did not do it often (according to their own accounts). I have no accounts of tank crews taking enemy tanks in the battlefield and employing them against the enemy (being assigned a captured weapon before battle is completely different and outside the scope of the game), while I do have a picture of a US crew who have captured an staffed a 75mm German AT gun, it looks pretty staged, and is not really useful.

One thing we have to be careful is to avoid falling into the Combat! trap and the trap of logic. It looks easy in battle to find and turn an enemy field gun around, but that does not mean it really happened all that often. Sometimes our attitudes about this are colored by the fact that Vic Morrow used this or that German weapon like he was born to them in the series, which was the inspiration of Squad Leader.

Broken crew rallying and returning to the abandoned AT gun they just quit I have less problem with, but we still need to ask if it happened all that opten in a 30 minute battle. If we can find out that it indeed happened a bit, then it would probably be useful to code at some future time.

[Slapdragon]

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

If a gun crew routs, it was SOP to render the gun useless, by getting rid of some part of the breech, so even if the crew just ran away, the weapon would still be unusable. Bidermann in 'In deadly combat' relates one such instance, where they were driven off their PAK, but rendered it useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good point. Chucking breach blocks and smashing sights was common in all armies (well, I am not sure about the Rumanians and the Estonians, but I am assuming) to keep a weapon out of enemy hands -- although in practice this was not a great answer since these could often be remade, it at least kept the weapon out of action until repaired.

I do remember Steve saying that abandoned meant the weapon was not serviceable but may return in operations, or at least I recall that but cannot get tyhe search engine to work.

[dragonwagon]

Well maybe it's just a matter of "time" .

Most battles usually last only minutes.

Maybe the weapon has been damaged in some way?

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I guess it's still operable, but the crew has run for cover, cause the situation was a little bit to hot. ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not necessarily the case. Steve has said that if a crew abandons a gun having sustained few or no casualties, the gun is assumed to have been damaged. If they have taken serious losses they are assumed to be too rattled to go back a few minutes latter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I noticed that crews of support weapons usually try to flee with their heavy weapons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only true of MGs, and is due to a coding issue (MGs are considered infantry in the CM engine).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>c) why can a machinegun not be knocked out with a surviving crew? Is a MG not so vulnerable like a 60mm mortar?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>d) Maybe a surviving crew would be able to man the weapon of another - maybe killed or routed - crew? Maybe they could even man an abandoned enemy gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you would have the opportunity to use this feature often enough to make it worth while. If you can actually get your own routed crews all the way over to where the other guy had his own guns, you've probably already won the battle.

I can just see people charging their crews across the map, braving MG and tank fire to make it to that abandoned enemy 88 on that back hill... bleh

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Scipio]

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

That makes it a bit difficult to answer your questions and c), since the answer is (you guessed it) 'coding'. Maybe it will be changed, and Steve (IIRC) has acknowledged it is not realistic, but it is fundamentally coding related, so how can you not discuss this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant, we should not discuss if something is worth to be coded, but of cause we should discuss if a 'problem' is caused by the coding.

Abandoned/Knocked out - thanks for the clarification. In this case, maybe the word 'abandoned' is not the best choice to describe the state of the weapon - or this word has a deeper meaning then my dictionary told me :confused:

Yes, when I think about it you're right, I guess it was usual to make a gun unusable before abandon it, even to avoid capturing.

[MikeyD]

I've read reports of 'spiking' guns in combat, even spiking the mighty JadgTiger! Look at those common war photos of G.I.s inspecting a Tiger by the road. The gun often appears to have remained in full recoil. That's because before abandoning the tank the hydraulic fluid was drained, a shell inserted into the breech, and the gun fired by lanyard (a long string!) from outside the vehicle. I've also seen picts of U.S. 3 inch anti-tank guns that had been spiked during fighting in the Bulge.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I meant, we should not discuss if something is worth to be coded, but of cause we should discuss if a 'problem' is caused by the coding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only thing I see here that I would like to see changed, is MGs being allowed to abandon.

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[mensch]

Scipio where you ever in the army???

jeezus ok the crew thing you got an ear full from.. ABANDOND weapons.. here's a tip.. if a crew has to abandon a weapon they are trained to either if posible, spike the gun! and TAKE the fireing pin / block and take it with them! or throw it away somewhere, where the enemy can not find it or has a hell of a time finding it. Knocked out weapons mean they are either damage to the point they can't be used. Not only making them Damaged but abandoned as well, even still the crews if they could will remove the pins out of the guns!!. this makes your Point a) moot and point d) moot since you just don't grasp the idea crews are taught to run back to base if possible. jeez you didn't hear of Wittmann run around looking for a MG to man to kill maybe two or a few guys only to be captured or killed did you? no he high tailed it back to base for a nice brand new tank to do what he does best (destory stuff he's trained with.. here's a tip.. it's called a TANK)

to answer your point

Infantry are taught to take their equipmet with them if they can (and they will bloody well try too as well!) in the event they can't they will abandon their weapon refer to my spiking the weapons bit.

ask some soldiers and tank crew on order of conduct in and on the battle field.. realy you should read those books that were listed.

[Slapdragon]

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

The only thing I see here that I would like to see changed, is MGs being allowed to abandon.

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the M2HB should definately be abandoned like a mortar, but an MG42? It is not that heavy to grab and run. Neither is the 1919.

The question is, did crews of crew served MGs abandon their guns often, or did they flee with them? The only text I have on this is from Korea, not WW2.

[Fieldmarshall]

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

Scipio where you ever in the army???

jeezus ok the crew thing you got an ear full from.. ABANDOND weapons.. here's a tip.. if a crew has to abandon a weapon they are trained to either if posible, spike the gun! and TAKE the fireing pin / block and take it with them! or throw it away somewhere, where the enemy can not find it or has a hell of a time finding it. Knocked out weapons mean they are either damage to the point they can't be used. Not only making them Damaged but abandoned as well, even still the crews if they could will remove the pins out of the guns!!. this makes your Point a) moot and point d) moot since you just don't grasp the idea crews are taught to run back to base if possible. jeez you didn't hear of Wittmann run around looking for a MG to man to kill maybe two or a few guys only to be captured or killed did you? no he high tailed it back to base for a nice brand new tank to do what he does best (destory stuff he's trained with.. here's a tip.. it's called a TANK)

to answer your point

Infantry are taught to take their equipmet with them if they can (and they will bloody well try too as well!) in the event they can't they will abandon their weapon refer to my spiking the weapons bit.

ask some soldiers and tank crew on order of conduct in and on the battle field.. realy you should read those books that were listed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is absolutily right, I mean if a man had to abandone his M-1 Garrand, he removed the action from the gun, and I read in a book that during WW II if a Allied tank crew had time, if they had to bug out they would take a HE shell dup it on the floor, and throw a grenaded into the tank...this I think would most likely render it useless, but this usually happend if a tank became mired in the mud, and advancing troops were ahead...

-Field

[Scipio]

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

Scipio where you ever in the army???

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and you will laugh - I was in a 120mm mortar unit. No, we were never teached to destroy our weapons or how to do so.

I guess now you can imagine why I think that the German Bundeswehr is one of the most useless armys in the world. (Ten years ago - I don't know if it's better now, but I don't think so).

Anyway - it's not necessary to talk to me as if I'm a child or a moron or both. And please excuse that I didn't made it to read all the books about war - the most of them are unavailable in German, and my Englisch isn't good.

[mensch]

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

Yes, and you will laugh - I was in a 120mm mortar unit. No, we were never teached to destroy our weapons or how to do so.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

diferent reasons I guess.. blame Kohl

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

Anyway - it's not necessary to talk to me as if I'm a child or a moron or both. And please excuse that I didn't made it to read all the books about war - the most of them are unavailable in German, and my Englisch isn't good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Scipo , kuhl bleiben. Da sind ein Paar gute Bucher ich habe gekauft bei Amazon.de oder Buch.de.

Ich wolte nicht so stark über kommen, tut mir leid. Ich war in ein Panzergruppe in Kanada. In krieg wir hatten gelernt wenn man kann es nicht zurück tragen; stüren es.

Fragt mal Andreas "Germanboy" er hat bestimmt ein paar gute Bücher in Deutsch zu opfern..hehe.. nein.. aber ein liste von was hat gute information von.

Grego (aka mensch)

[Slapdragon]

Hey Mensch.

Mine assen ist colden, en du viener snitzel est su wlken de doggin. Dieses Bier schmeckt wie Pferd pissen. Mein Hund trägt liederhosen und ein lustiger deutscher Hut.

Boy, after 20 years, I still remember my high school German!!! Of course, I drove half way around Germany several years back looking for the town of beenden and I never did figure out what a Badezimmer was, but it was a nice trip.

[Pak40]

Scipio,

You have valid points and I hope that some day BTS will address them. As for why they didn't code all of this into CMBO, it was primarily due to time constaints and resource constraints.

BTS, a SMALL independent software company had very limited resources compared to your typical software company that has support from a larger and more powerful publisher. BTS had to draw a scope for the game to fit within their budget and time frame. I'm sure they would have loved to program all the things you mentioned (and hundreds of other things) but it just wasn't possible to fit it into their scope at that time. If they had attempted to make the "perfect wargame" then you wouldn't have seen CMBO until late 2001 instead of summer of 2000.

BTS now has some more resources, although they are still very small, and an existing engine to build from. They also have a lot more experience AND a lot more help from us, the consumer than they did 2 years ago when CMBO was in full production.

My point is that we should all wait and be patient because BTS is and will be constantly improving Combat Mission until it is molded into a more ideal or perfect tactical wargame. What you call "doubts" I call "anticipation" because I know that someday BTS will put these and many other features into Combat Mission.

[Scipio]

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

Hey Scipo , kuhl bleiben. Da sind ein Paar gute Bucher ich habe gekauft bei Amazon.de oder Buch.de.

Ich wolte nicht so stark über kommen, tut mir leid. Ich war in ein Panzergruppe in Kanada. In krieg wir hatten gelernt wenn man kann es nicht zurück tragen; stüren es.

Fragt mal Andreas "Germanboy" er hat bestimmt ein paar gute Bücher in Deutsch zu opfern..hehe.. nein.. aber ein liste von was hat gute information von.

Grego (aka mensch)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problemo :cool: . I started to read 'Stalingrad' by Antony Beevor just two days ago (German translation). What I really seek are (German) books about Tank tactics and also AT.

Well, I see that the common sense is : this idea is bull**** . Nevertheless, I learned a few more things.

Now to something completly different - I assume this has been dicussed already, but I love to hear old storys again

How about the hit rate of - especially heavy - AT guns over long ranges? The German 88 (AA) was known as a relativ big, easy to spot gun, so it's greatest 'defense' was the ability to fire and destroy tanks over long ranges (I currently don't find details about it). But in a running battle, we fire over 2000m with those guns (Jacksons vs Elephant and Jagdpanthers, not moving) and hit nearly nothing. Is it only lack of luck in this battle, or is it normal & correct?

[Slapdragon]

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

No problemo :cool: . I started to read 'Stalingrad' by Antony Beevor just two days ago (German translation). What I really seek are (German) books about Tank tactics and also AT.

Well, I see that the common sense is : this idea is bull**** . Nevertheless, I learned a few more things.

Now to something completly different - I assume this has been dicussed already, but I love to hear old storys again

How about the hit rate of - especially heavy - AT guns over long ranges? The German 88 (AA) was known as a relativ big, easy to spot gun, so it's greatest 'defense' was the ability to fire and destroy tanks over long ranges (I currently don't find details about it). But in a running battle, we fire over 2000m with those guns (Jacksons vs Elephant and Jagdpanthers, not moving) and hit nearly nothing. Is it only lack of luck in this battle, or is it normal & correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you name your citation on the long range hit or miss rate of large antitank weapons? I am curious to look at your figures a bit more carefully to see how they really compare to CM. Your current comment is rather vague, just a request that big guns fire more accurately without any facts to back up the request.

[Scipio]

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

Can you name your citation on the long range hit or miss rate of large antitank weapons? I am curious to look at your figures a bit more carefully to see how they really compare to CM. Your current comment is rather vague, just a request that big guns fire more accurately without any facts to back up the request.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry - I was talking bull****, I wanted to request something different, but was inattentive for the moment - I received a turn

Okay - an AT gun can shot 'relativ' excact, also on longer ranges (up to 2000 meters?). What I have noticed in my battles (and tests) is this (example).

Shot one - far away. That's normal

Shot two - just somewhere else

Shot three - again

Shot four - a hit (ricochet)

shot five - far away

shot six - again

shot seven - hit

Okay, I'm no AT expert, but I remember something I've read about the 88 (I'm not sure if it's the right terms, so please excuse, I hope you get what I mean):

Shot one - take distance, shot goes behind target

Shot two - again, goes to short

Shot three - hit.

If the target wasn't killed

Shot four - hit and over (cause it wasn't necessary to adjust again)

I assume this was meant for non or slow moving vehicels.

In CM, the 'later' shots doesn't show a higher tendency to hit the target then the first shot, also if the target was already hit once. Of course, that may depent on the quality of the gun/tank crew, so I made the test with Elite forces. It is maybe also influenced by low quality ammo(?). But I think the 88 (for example) hasn't the reputation as the best AT gun of WWII if it was so unreliable.

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Sorry - I was talking bull****, I wanted to request something different, but was inattentive for the moment - I received a turn

Okay - an AT gun can shot 'relativ' excact, also on longer ranges (up to 2000 meters?). What I have noticed in my battles (and tests) is this (example).

Shot one - far away. That's normal

Shot two - just somewhere else

Shot three - again

Shot four - a hit (ricochet)

shot five - far away

shot six - again

shot seven - hit

Okay, I'm no AT expert, but I remember something I've read about the 88 (I'm not sure if it's the right terms, so please excuse, I hope you get what I mean):

Shot one - take distance, shot goes behind target

Shot two - again, goes to short

Shot three - hit.

If the target wasn't killed

Shot four - hit and over (cause it wasn't necessary to adjust again)

I assume this was meant for non or slow moving vehicels.

In CM, the 'later' shots doesn't show a higher tendency to hit the target then the first shot, also if the target was already hit once. Of course, that may depent on the quality of the gun/tank crew, so I made the test with Elite forces. It maybe is also be influenced by low quality ammo(?). But I think the 88 (for example) hasn't the reputation as the best AT gun of WWII if it was so unreliable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, now test this out. First, you need a cite to account for your claim of the accuracy of the 88 (version whatever). Like: Johnson and Hammersmith said this in this book. Maybe your cite will be no good, maybe it will be good, but we need to see it to see how you figured out that third shot hits where norm at x meters range.

Then you can use CM to test your theory. Line up a bunch of Shermans with no ammo on one side of the board, and bog them in swamp. Line up a bunch of 88s on the other. Put them in level 4 trenches so they cannot shoot at each other. Make sure you have at least twenty guns and twenty targets. Play a first turn 5 times, and figure out in those 100 gun/turns what your average hit rate is. Compare with your citation (and for giggles save your file so others can play with it also by varying range, etc).

Now, if they are different, come up with a theory on why they are different, and present your theory. Expect to defend your source, your test model, and your findings, but if you have done it right it should be no problem.