Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?

[Redwolf]

Grmpf, my 95mm HEAT tank destroyer claim seems to continue making confusion.

I didn't say the British would use the Churchill VIII as a Hellcat.

What I did say is that by the time the gun and the HC round were constructed and tested, if it was as good as it is in CMBO, then the British would have built a different system around it. Long before the CMBO timeframe. The 95mm HC argument I use is not comparable with a "had the US concentrated on the 76 or 90 from start" or "had the Germans built more PZ IV-class" what-if hindsight stuff. Because the above decisions are about tradeoffs, at least about price/performance, and usually also require to predict the future to make the tradeoff. If the 95mm was as good as in CMBO, there would be no tradeoff. You get everything, cheap gun for small turret ring, small ammunition, good penetration, a single gun for multiple purposes. Except for hit probability (see below).

Before Jeff Duquette posted his numbers (thanks!), the only numbers being passed were the same, posted by Jason and used by BTS. It is only natural to doubt such a single number when history events make them doubtful. Some of you seem to believe that the British would have been as stupid as to dismiss a goood AT weapon in the first half of the war, while tangling with the Germans in the desert. I doubt they were.

Yes, I was wrong about my penetration assumptions, data like Jeff's easily convinced me.

And the document that that Jeff scanned has a clue to come nearer to an explanation for the British behaviour: hit probablity. The 95mm HC round is reported as having 1/3 of the hit chance of a 6 pdr AP shot at 1000 yards. In CMBO it is 2/3. I don't say the report is better, it seems extremly conservative. But combine that with clues that HC rounds may have a stronger tendency to ricochett from angles where they could penetrate if they stayed straight, I don't think that CMBO models that. Tuning or implementing these parameters can easily tune the gun and its HC effect down.

So, if you could be so friendly and assume that neithe me nor the British are stupid. My observation of history tell me the gun was crap against armour, but isn't in CMBO. Since it obviously wasn't the base penetration, it was something else.

And I don't think it's irrelevant for CMBB, a good model for HEAT from short guns certainly can't hurt the game. Ricochets? Round-by-round Variations? Less precision than in CMBO? CS crew without a clue how to hit a moving target?

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Ogadai]

Simon and Michael, while I agree with you that the Iron Chef is quite annoying, I'm quite willing to defend his right to post, how he wants. I see the picking on him by yourself and others as merely being an effort to make him conform to your expectations, rather than necessarily an effort to refute him.

Personally, I ignore 90% of what he says but I'll defend his right to say it how he wants.

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:

Personally, I ignore 90% of what he says but I'll defend his right to say it how he wants.<hr></blockquote>

On that, we agree.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

ok fine point taken, true it has been years since i have actualy delved into a ww2 book, and i guess it is showing since i dont remember every quote and title to replicate it in this forum, i'll start re reading some stuff, happy now? hehe, from now on i'll supply sourses for you guys to check out if you want when i state something

[Simon Fox]

Well since he seems to have partially conformed to the requests regarding style without getting his back up or accusing anybody of childishness then your point is largely moot

I for one was unable to discern what proportion of his posts I disagreed with since I wasn't prepared to wade through them in their previous form.

BTW, thanks Chef!

redwolf,

I think the point to note is not one merely of doctrine but of flexibility of employment. The 95mm HEAT round may have had good anti-armour performance under a limited range of circumstances . But overall other weapons proved better all round anti-armour performers. Remember the development of this weapon was probably coincidental with that of the 17pdr. The question of accuracy is an important one, even in CMBO being 30% less accurate is pretty significant. Consider the historical circumstance of Cromwells vs MkIVs or SP guns or StuGs or even AT guns, then the benefits are a little less clear cut. There is also the issue of the number of rounds a vehicle may carry. Many other factors (including manufacturing and supply issues) have to be considered.

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

95mm ... You get everything, cheap gun for small turret ring, small ammunition, good penetration, a single gun for multiple purposes. Except for hit probability (see below).

<hr></blockquote>

Related to this is the relative MVs. The 17pr in the Firefly is listed as having an MV of 884m/s, while the 95mm in the Cromwell VI has 503m/s. Now, HC is speed independant for its effects, but the hit probability for direct fire weapons - especially at range - is. Higher MV = flatter trajectory. Flatter trajectory means that you can mis-judge the range by a greater amount, and still get a hit. This was one of the particular advantages of the German high velocity cannons - as illustrated in the Tiger-fibel.

The point is, a low velocuity gun like the 95mm in the CS tanks isn't so good at long-ish ranges.

Oh yeah, I wouldn't call the 95mm 'small ammo' either. The 95mm armed Cromwell could only carry ~80% of the ammo load in the 75mm armed version.

Regards

JonS

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

[Ogadai]

Out of a matter of interest, is windage modelled in CM? I'd expect the 95mm CS How. to be quite badly affected windage, as it was quite a low velocity weapon. As most tank gunners desire to engage at long range, its utility would have been quite small and only useful in the single environment of Normandy, rather than out on the rolling plains of, well anywhere. Another factor which might have told against its promotion to being an uberweapon in real life might have been its reliability. I know Hogg, in his British and American Artillery of World War Two, was quite contempteous of the towed version of the weapon, citing problems with sealing around the breech and jamming of cases as to some of the reasons why it was never issued in large numbers. Did the tank mounted version suffer from similar problems?

I'd also be interested in finding out what the scale of issue of the HEAT round was for the 95mm CS Howitzer. Might it not have been like the 2 Pdr HE round - developed but never issued in large numbers?

[Tero]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Except for hit probability (see below).

In a recent PBEM I had a Churchill CS fire at an yet-unidentified SP gun (thought it was a Marder and did not switch to AP, it later turned out to be a Stug) with HE ammo for several turns without hitting it. Then another SP gun, instantly ID'd as a Stug showed up on its other flank and the Churchill nailed it with the first (AP) shot. (The graphichs showed the turret facing the other SP gun when I issued the retarget order but when the reaction phase started the turret was facing the Stug and it fired at it within 3-5 seconds into the reaction phase. Straight between the eyes). Then it resumed sniping the other SP gun with HE with the usual inaccuracy. (I later took it out with a PIAT.)

Talk about coincidence.

[RMC]

I have found that there is only one drawback to "cherry picking" the Churchill VIII and that is the limited supply of HEAT rounds. I would like to take it for its HE performance against infantry but I have had great success with them busting tanks and that thick armor doesn't hurt either.

And on the receiving end, the little Cromwell VII(?) in the Villers Bocage scenario was my #1 concern after the fireflies because it killed my Tigers like nobody's business. It was a real surprise the first time I encountered it. It was just another puny Cromwell right? Wrong!

As many have suggested something is amiss here. Perhaps the reasonable accuracy of the gun needs some tweaking downward if the penetration numbers are about right.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:

Out of a matter of interest, is windage modelled in CM? I'd expect the 95mm CS How. to be quite badly affected windage, as it was quite a low velocity weapon.<hr></blockquote>

No wind in CM. I'm not sure if ballistic coefficients are modeled "under the hood", but with no specific wind modeling I doubt it.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to add this to CM2. Perhaps they already have?

[Battlefront.com]

RMC,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As many have suggested something is amiss here. Perhaps the reasonable accuracy of the gun needs some tweaking downward if the penetration numbers are about right.<hr></blockquote>

I think the biggest problem, in your particular battle, when compared to reality is that (if I am not mistaken) the Cromwell in question retreated. Therefore, it is possible that what you witnessed was a totally plausable "what if" situation. And that is, if the tank commander had more confidence in his crew and weapon, and with a bit of luck, they might have made a difference. Then again, they might have been knocked out before firing a shot like so many of the other British vehicles that day. So the TC made the call to bugger off instead of becoming yet another casualty statistic.

I have mentioned this problem before, several times now, with CMBO's modeling of crew morale. Specifically, a crew will only express a slight short term degree of caution when it doesn't like the looks of things. That means pulling out of LOS or popping smoke. In CMBB there is a chance that your tank will, instead, have a massive and long term negative reaction. Oh... like turning right around and driving 500m to the rear and off the map edge Trust me, this feature makes a HUGE difference in standard gameplay.

Vanir Ausf B wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>No wind in CM. I'm not sure if ballistic coefficients are modeled "under the hood", but with no specific wind modeling I doubt it.<hr></blockquote>

Correct. There is definitely accounting for air and wind resistance in CM. However, at the moment it is pretty much fixed to simulating a normal flow of air.

Steve

[Vergeltungswaffe]

500m to the rear and exit? Oh man, it just keeps getting better....

[RMC]

Hmm, fleeing the battlefield would definitely be cool to watch when it happens to the other guy but I can already imagine the screams when it happens to you/me/us. Wargamers tend to have very little patience for digital soldiers not following orders. Maybe this be another toggle like FOW. Just because something is realistic and perfectly defensible doesn't mean it will be popular.

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:

Out of a matter of interest, is windage modelled in CM?<hr></blockquote>

I believe the 'Poolers will attest to the fact tht Kentucy windage frequently helps their CM play.

Don't know about the other kind.

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by RMC:

Hmm, fleeing the battlefield would definitely be cool to watch when it happens to the other guy but I can already imagine the screams when it happens to you/me/us. Wargamers tend to have very little patience for digital soldiers not following orders. Maybe this be another toggle like FOW. Just because something is realistic and perfectly defensible doesn't mean it will be popular.<hr></blockquote>

Depends on how rare it was. It was a rare enough occurence in Squad Leader/ASL that it wasn't totally bothersome; I'm looking forward to all these nifty little random events.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi RMC,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Hmm, fleeing the battlefield would definitely be cool to watch when it happens to the other guy but I can already imagine the screams when it happens to you/me/us. <hr></blockquote>

I've had it happen to me, and personally I find it quite interesting. Not any different than having my point infantry platoon freak out on me IMHO.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Wargamers tend to have very little patience for digital soldiers not following orders.<hr></blockquote>

Yup.

We constantly picture Jack Nicholson saying "you want the Truth? You can't HANDLE the Truth!" The fact is, as you point out, that many "grognards" will state over and over again that all they care about is accuracy and historically correct atmosphere. But then you give it to them and they start sounding like a bunch of Panzer General fanatics Nothing wrong with Panzer General, just people who claim they want one thing but really want something different.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Maybe this be another toggle like FOW.<hr></blockquote>

That was the original plan, but for some reason it didn't work out like that. It will be manditory. However, like other issues of morale and motivation, we are not making this quite as "realistic" as we probably could. That means tanks, even Conscript ones, generally won't drive 500m to the rear and off the map EVEN if in real life they should have. Instead, the tank is most likely going to withdraw out of LOS (like in CMBO right now) but not want to imediately go into the arms of waiting death for a while (unlike in CMBO right now).

The main benefit of the new vehicle morale model is that you get different degrees of behavior like infantry always has had. Gunners will not be quite as good when stressed out, reactions will be more hesitant, unbuttoning might not be an option, etc.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Just because something is realistic and perfectly defensible doesn't mean it will be popular.<hr></blockquote>

Which is why we didn't include vehicle morale in CMBO We figured people would have enough to digest without it. However, we have been quite pleased about the reaction to the morale model which is applied to non-vehicles. People really like it overall, even if in a particular situation they might gripe a bit. Can't please all the people all the time, especially on a simulated chaotic battlefield!

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

vehicle moral is a must have. it is th only thing i was not completley pleased about in cmbo, sherman tankers were very scared of going up against tiger tanks. in the game as is the tanks are pretty much the one unit that is fearless, and why should they be, their are humans inside controling them. glad you guys decided to add this to the next game, nice job.

[RMC]

If it gets tied to the global morale level it might be rather common, or it could just happen anytime enemy armor shows up in strength. I'm sure there's plenty of room for tweaking to get it right. It could get really frustrating to have your armor quit the field anytime a KT shows up, though this would be the prudent thing for the Shermans to do especially if the terrain does not offer the possibility of maneuvering for flank shots.

I never played enough ASL to ever have a problem with armor morale. The only other situation I can relate it to was when I had a Pz IV crew panick while still inside their tank in a Schijndel Dunes battle in CC2. I had spent all my scrounged points on this thing and they were panicking in an exposed position under attack from two bazooka teams. They wouldn't shoot or move. Luckily the bazooka teams were just as scared.

[edit]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Which is why we didn't include vehicle morale in CMBO We figured people would have enough to digest without it.<hr></blockquote>

Oh, so this has been a gradual weaning process and we're now ready for solid food? No more strained peas?

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: RMC ]</p>

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by RMC:

... No more strained peas?<hr></blockquote>

C'mon now RMC - that kind of thing belongs in the Cesspool. And if you're straining to pee you really should go see someone at the clinic

[Ogadai]

So, no windage. Therein I think is the answer to Jason's questions about the accuracy of the 95mm CS How. Low velocity weapons are easily effected by wind and unless this is modelled correctly, the acccuracy of the weapon will be much greater than it was in real life. If windage, as part of the general weather conditions were to be taken into account in future releases of CM, then the matter of the 95mm and other low velocity weapons being so accurate would be basically fixed in my opinion.

[Jeff Duquette]

I saw someone referring to a CS Cromwell fleeing or buggering off from Villers-Boccage…not sure what tank crew that might have been. As I understood it all the CS-Cromwells were commanded by Troop leaders.

As I had indicated before Lt. Bill Cotton’s tank was a Cromwell CS, and he certainly didn’t “bugger off”. He simply dismounted his CS Tank. In his own words he felt the vehicle possessed little value in a stand-up fight with tanks. Lt. Cotton -- a veteran tanker from N. Africa --parked his CS Cromwell at the back of his Troop and proceeded to direct the fire of his Troops Firefly and Cromwell-6pdrs while on foot. Lt. Cotton won the Military Cross for his work at Villers-Boccage. His Troops tally when all was said and done included two Tigers from the 101st SchwerePanzer Abteilung and a pair of MkIV’s from the Lehr Division. So his lack of confidence was restricted only in the CS tanks ability to kill other tanks.

To whomever asked the question regarding smoke ammunition capability of the 95mm, I did get independent verification from Claus Bonnesen who dug out some old wartime service manual for the Churchill…A smoke round was indeed listed in the types of ordnance employed by the 95mm CS gun.

[Jeff Duquette]

Here it is:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Service Intstruction Book Churchill VII and VIII of June 1944 lists

Shell, Q.F. High Explosive, 95mm, Tank and S.P. Howitzers Mark IA

Shell, Q.F. H.E./A.T., 95mm Tank Howitzer

Shell, Q.F. Smoke Emission, 95mm Tank Howitzer Mark I

Claus B<hr></blockquote>

[Ogadai]

Thank you Jeff. Out of a matter of interest, do you have any information on the scale of issue of both Smoke and HEAT rounds for the 95mm? It could well be that like the 2 Pdr. HE round in NW Europe, the 95mm HEAT round was as rare as rocking horse poo, which might well account for its non-use as an uber-tank-killing round. If the CS tanks carried predominately HE and Smoke, it might explain why Lt.Cotton decided his CS equipped Cromwell wasn't much use in a standup tank fight like that around Villers-Bocage.

[Battlefront.com]

RMC:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If it gets tied to the global morale level it might be rather common, or it could just happen anytime enemy armor shows up in strength. <hr></blockquote>

Global Morale will, as it does now, be a significant factor. In fact, when you think of vehicle morale, just think of it as the same morale system used for infantry units. That isn't quite accurate, but close enough!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I'm sure there's plenty of room for tweaking to get it right. It could get really frustrating to have your armor quit the field anytime a KT shows up, though this would be the prudent thing for the Shermans to do especially if the terrain does not offer the possibility of maneuvering for flank shots.<hr></blockquote>

This is why we need to make the vehicle morale system a tad bit less realistic than it probably should be. We do want to leave it up to the player as to how and when to use vehicles. Like I said before, the vehicles will behave much like infantry. If they are decent quality, in good positions, and well supported... chances are they will hold. But driving a Conscript manned light tank out into the middle of a field to tackle a King Tiger will most likely not be a good thing

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Oh, so this has been a gradual weaning process and we're now ready for solid food? No more strained peas?<hr></blockquote>

Something like that We were very conscious that a LOT of things about CM were going to take some getting used to. We were concerned that if we too far in some directions the totality of CM's features might work against it. We still think that was a wise move, but now we feel people can handle the extra challenges without getting overly frustrated.

Ogadai:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Therein I think is the answer to Jason's questions about the accuracy of the 95mm CS How. Low velocity weapons are easily effected by wind and unless this is modelled correctly, the accuracy of the weapon will be much greater than it was in real life.<hr></blockquote>

Depends on distance, wind speed, and direction of the wind. Closer, slower, and parallel would likely have little effect on it. Long distance, high speed, and cross direction would likely reduce the accuracy. So like many things, it is situationally dependent.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If windage, as part of the general weather conditions were to be taken into account in future releases of CM, then the matter of the 95mm and other low velocity weapons being so accurate would be basically fixed in my opinion. <hr></blockquote>

No, because his argument is that it penetrates too much armor. Windage has nothing to do with the accuracy of the 95mm round exclusive of other low velocity shells of similar size (like the US and German 105mm rounds). Accuracy only got added to this rambling debate rather lately

Hi Jeff,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I saw someone referring to a CS Cromwell fleeing or buggering off from Villers-Boccage…not sure what tank crew that might have been. As I understood it all the CS-Cromwells were commanded by Troop leaders. <hr></blockquote>

Whoops! That was me Like I said, it was if I recalled correctly, which I apparently didn't.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As I had indicated before Lt. Bill Cotton’s tank was a Cromwell CS, and he certainly didn’t “bugger off”. He simply dismounted his CS Tank. ... So his lack of confidence was restricted only in the CS tanks ability to kill other tanks. <hr></blockquote>

Sorry, I obviously mischaracterized why he did not engage in combat with his Cromwell. But the point is still the same. In real life the tank in question decided to not challenge the Tiger. In the game, it did. As I have said earlier, the Cromwell was NOT some sort of British "über" tank killer, so that was the sane and correct decision to make. However, the AI and humans aren't constrained by real life sanity checks or doctrinal proceedures. Therefore, what RMC experienced in Combat Mission could have really happened (i.e. a "what if" scenario) if Lt. Cotton decided to take a crack at the enemy.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>To whomever asked the question regarding smoke ammunition capability of the 95mm, I did get independent verification from Claus Bonnesen who dug out some old wartime service manual for the Churchill…A smoke round was indeed listed in the types of ordnance employed by the 95mm CS gun.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the additional information. No idea why the 95mm smoke shell was left out. I'll mention it to Charles, but of course we all know that no patch will be forthcoming

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

Sorry…correction to my previous post. Review of the War Diaries For 4th County of London Yeomanry (The Sharpshooters) regarding the engagement at Villers-Boccage indicates:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>1035 Hours - All stations go off the air. B Sqn ordered to hold village at all costs. 4 Troop B Squadron, along with infantry and A/Tk guns under Lt L Cotton MM, after a 6 hour street battle, destroy 4 Tigers and 3 Mark IV.<hr></blockquote>