Track Damage, CMBO and CM2.

[Forever Babra]

Here is an extract from the Loza interview at Russian Military Zone:

- What would you like to say about the German Tiger?

- It was an extremely heavy vehicle. The Sherman could never defeat a Tiger with a frontal shot. We had to force the Tiger to expose its flank. If we were defending and the Germans were attacking, we had a special tactic. Two Shermans were designated for each Tiger. The first Sherman fired at the track and broke it. For a brief space of time the heavy vehicle still moved forward on one track, which caused it to turn. At this moment the second Sherman shot it in the side, trying to hit the fuel cell. This is how we did it.

Now the questions.

In CMBO, I have noted that vehicles destroyed while on the move will most often veer to the side, but vehicles suffering an immobilizing hit simply stop on the same heading. Any hope of an adjustment for CM2?

I would NEVER EVER (EVER) suggest that it be player-controlled, but could "called shots" be implemented by the tac a/i if they aren't already? In the example above, we see called shots at the tracks and the fuel cells. It stands to reason that if the only effective shot a unit has is at the tracks, it's going to take that shot, doesn't it?

[JunoReactor]

I am with Babra on this one. Its a minor quibble, but its somewhat disconcerting to see a 60-ton Tiger coming to a immediate stop from 20mph at the touch of a halt button, change of orders or end of movement orders. At this rate, the Tiger's kinetic energy is equal to a 1-ton car doing 1200 mph! (F=MV)

I guess if the physics engine could be extended to include vehicles, this problem would dissapear, and it would bring more benefits as well. (one example being Babra's suggestion)

Pretty please?

[invarient]

"At this rate, the Tiger's kinetic energy is equal to a 1-ton car doing 1200 mph! (F=MV)"

Actually, you're talking about Momentum, not kinetic energy nor force.

momentum = (mass)(velocity)

K.E. = 1/2 (mass)(velocity)^2

Force = (mass)(acceleration)

A note from your friendly neighborhood physicist.

[JunoReactor]

Oops! Now I know why I failed physics the first time in high school. Thanks!

But still, the point remains just about valid..

[Tiger]

brakes?

Increase the amount of AI-aimed critical hits, i.e. specific parts...? not sure how this will add to the game. We get a good amount of track hits and weak spot hits as it is now.

I agree that vehicles moving "at speed" that take a track hit should move forward a small bit and possibly veer a few feet before they stop.

-Tiger

[KiwiJoe]

I would luv CALLED SHOTS. I would imagine something like this:

Targeting a Tiger 1 at 700m with a (vet) 76mm AT gun you would get say a 58% chance to hit... as per normal. But you could tell the crew to aim for a particular part of the tank, knowing that the turret is the strongest part and the upper hull is the weakest. Thus you would target the tank and select "upper hull shot". This would change your % chance to hit to say 40% but with a higher likely-hood that the upper hull will be hit. You could also try harder shots like track hits... with a smaller chance to hit of course.

[Simon Fox]

I have always been a proponent of the idea that CM does not accurately model the behaviour of an experienced or well trained AT gun or even tank crew who when faced with a tank which their weapon had little chance of penetrating would seldom aim for the 'centre of mass' but invariably aim for disabling hits on the running gear.

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

"Stand to your glasses steady,

This world is a world of lies,

Here's a toast to the dead already,

And here's to the next man to die."

-hymn of the "Double Reds"

[chrisl]

Originally posted by JunoReactor:

I guess if the physics engine could be extended to include vehicles, this problem would dissapear, and it would bring more benefits as well. (one example being Babra's suggestion)

IIRC, Charles had a reasonable description many ages ago as to why it was hard to do the decelerations properly for active vehicles. He certainly recognizes that it's not done realistically, and it sounded as if he had tried it at some point and decided it was too much of a processor hit. If I can think of a good set of keywords to search on I'll try to find it again.

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[JunoReactor]

Surely, by the time CM2 arrives, low-end CPU power will have doubled in comparison to CM?

This was debated before, yes.. Just another place to bring it up.

[Gordon]

"Called shots"?

You mean like:

Off the Tiger, past the Marder, into the Panther, nothing but shot trap?

Gordon

But I guess the real question is, do you play T-I-G-E-R, or P-A-N-T-H-E-R?

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by invarient:

Actually, you're talking about Momentum, not kinetic energy nor force.

momentum = (mass)(velocity)

K.E. = 1/2 (mass)(velocity)^2

Force = (mass)(acceleration)

Yup!

And performing the maths it ends up with the Tiger at 20 mph having the same energy as a racing car (1 ton) at 155 mph.

The racing car has huge, ventilated disk brakes. What about the Tiger?

Cheers

Olle

[Dschugaschwili]

The racing car has huge, ventilated disk brakes. What about the Tiger?

The maximum deceleration of the racing car is limited by how much friction the tires can produce with the road. In the case of a tank, as it is much heavier, this limit plays a much smaller role. As far as I know, a tank braking with full power will most likely destroy the road (or whatever else it's driving on), using up a good portion of its energy for the deformation of the ground. I've heard that tank drivers only do this in emergencies because it's too dangerous for the crew itself. But all in all right now I don't know of any vehicles that will come to a halt faster than a tank. Or does somebody know this better?

Dschugaschwili

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

Erst hat man kein Glück, und dann kommt auch noch Pech dazu.

[Olle Petersson]

My comment about the brakes was aimed at the heat problem.

If a tank can lock the wheels, then there won't be much heat buildup in the brakes (but an enourmous mechanical strain on all parts involved).

If they don't lock the wheels, then (as good as) all kinetic energy will be transformed to heat in the brakes...

Cheers

Olle

[Juardis]

Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

I would luv CALLED SHOTS. I would imagine something like this:

Targeting a Tiger 1 at 700m with a (vet) 76mm AT gun you would get say a 58% chance to hit... as per normal. But you could tell the crew to aim for a particular part of the tank, knowing that the turret is the strongest part and the upper hull is the weakest. Thus you would target the tank and select "upper hull shot". This would change your % chance to hit to say 40% but with a higher likely-hood that the upper hull will be hit. You could also try harder shots like track hits... with a smaller chance to hit of course.

Excellent idea Joe. A lot like how Fallout allowed you to aim for certain body parts with the appropriate reduction in hit chance. However, if the TAC/AI is doing the aiming, then this would be similar to a snap shot and in that situation, center of mass is entirely reasonable. Human targetting though should allow for called shots (yes...as in off the panther, around the Tiger, through the heavy building, right into the shot trap )

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

Jeff Abbott

[aka_tom_w]

Can WWII Tank Gunners Actually target a specific area of a tank?

Well there seems to be some evidence presented here that indicates they could.

BUT from my OLD days playing Tobruk I recal rolling the dice FIRST to see if there was a Hit

then Roll the Dice again if you did hit to see where it hit

Then roll the dice again for the damage result.

So now if we can infact target a specific area of the target clearly the chance to hit algorythms have to be rewritten. Then the question becomes written to what new standard based on what actual evidence?

Does anyone here play Panzer Elite?

Can you target and expect to hit a specific area of the opposing tank in PE by aiming at it?

I seems VERY reasonable to me the a random number generator (like rolling the dice) should determine where the shot hit if it did hit.

I say this because sometimes these damn tank gunners can't hit the broad side of a Barn (read Tiger 1 Broadside) So I'm not real sure how we can expect them to aim a specific weak point on a (probably larger and more heavily armoured) opposing tank and actually hit that weak spot.

There seems to be evidence that they Tried to do this, and Were TAUGHT how and when to do this, BUT how often was this technique actually successfully executed?

I to would like to see "called shots" Its COOL Idead but there should be a substantial penalty or the chance of hitting that weak spot should only go up only marginally and the chance to hit should drop substantially.

But its a great idea.....

-tomw

[tss]

I remember that either Steve or Charles posted that they had experimented with aimed shots, but the result was that there were proportionally far too many "weak spot" hits.

I know of (at least) one example where Stug-IIIG gunners deliberately aimed at a weak spot: During the Kuuterselkä counter-attack on 14 June 1944, the Finnish Stug column came upon a IS-II, from front. For some reason the driver's hatch was open so the two point Stug gunners aimed at it, and corporal Lauri Leppänen hit it with his second shot, knocking the tank out. For some reason the tank entered the official records as a KV-I, but a picture that Lt. Olli Aulanko took of the wreck clearly shows it to be a IS.

However, the range was something like 15-20 meters, much, much, much, much, much shorter than an usual engagement range.

Leppänen destroyed also 3 T-34-85s on that night. One of the encounters gives some perspective to those who think that CM gunners are too inaccurate:

Leppänen's tank commander noticed suddenly a T-34 about 20 m away behind a few trees. Leppänen aimed and fired, but the shot didn't have any effect. It either missed or ricocheted away, he didn't know. Then, the T-34-85 fired at them, but missed. Leppänen got the next shot, and knocked the Soviet tank out. So, here we have 2 ineffective shots at 20 meters.

- Tommi

[This message has been edited by tss (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

The French had a tank in 1940 (B1 bis, I think) that had a giant engine grille on the left hand side; the tank was a behemoth but this huge grill was a beautiful target.

Lest anyone think called shots is unreal - look at all the photos of Allied tanks with 2 or 3 holes punches through the white star on the side. They painted them out because the Germans were using them AS AIMING MARKS. And achieving good accuracy too. If they could aim for a 2 foot star, they could aim for tracks or shot traps.

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

CANUCK: Clothing, Equipping and Employing the Canadian Soldier in Combat Mission

[Dan Robertson]

Tracked vehicles can stop very quickly much quicker than say a passenger car.

I once was in a Warrior IFV when we pulled a rapid stop on a Gravel road, The vehicle stopped within it's own length, and tripped itself to an angle of about 20 degrees. (enough to make the ground in front of us vissible through the roof hatch.

It didn't rip the ground up though, mainly since the vehicle weighs about 24 tonnes about the same as a PKW IV and has reasonable wide tracks.

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

The vehicle stopped within its own length, and tripped itself to an angle of about 20 degrees.

Hehehe... been there done that -- well, not that bad, but still... Actually, in my initial post I never indicated any perceived faults with stopping distances. Someone has thrown a red herring out there. I was more concerned with the direction a vehicle takes when a track breaks and it happens to be moving at the time.

It would also depend, obviously, on what caused the immobilization in the first place. A 75 through the engine compartment will stop a tank just as readily as a broken track, but won't divert its course.

As for "called shots", how they would be implemented would be entirely up to BTS of course, but I would never suggest that just because I'm aiming at a track that I necessarily hit the track. The usual probabilities for such a shot would obviously apply.

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[DekeFentle]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

My comment about the brakes was aimed at the heat problem.

If a tank can lock the wheels, then there won't be much heat buildup in the brakes (but an enourmous mechanical strain on all parts involved).

If they don't lock the wheels, then (as good as) all kinetic energy will be transformed to heat in the brakes...

Cheers

Olle

Personal experience note here. I drove Bradley’s while I was in the Cavalry. Now I know that’s not a tank by modern standards but it is a 36 ton AFV and I can tell you that stomping on the brake at 50kph simply puts it into a slide. Depending on road crown it’s pretty much straight. On dirt you could power slide them around a corner very much like putting a car into a four wheel drift.

As far as the crew goes if they are prepared for the maneuver there is nothing much that happens. Now if your TC is hanging out with his hands on a pair of binoculars instead of the hatch ring a bruised pair of ribs for him and excessive KP for the driver was usually the result. The rest of the crew gets tossed about a bit but the pad on the gun sight usually keeps the gunner from getting a black eye and the loader damn well better have his crewman’s helmet on securely instead of sleeping with it half unstrapped in the back. You would be amazed at how often those damn TOW missiles would jump out of the rack even under relatively mild open ground maneuvering.

All in all driving an AFV is really pretty similar to most vehicles. Stopping distance was amazingly short even in less that ideal ground conditions. (except ice those babys slide FOREVER) As far as momentum goes I can’t speak to getting hit (thank the creator) but I did lose a track at about 20 – 25 kph at Hoenfelz (Sp?) and we rolled straight ahead to a stop. I can’t recall what kind of distance. (it’s always the drivers fault when that happens and the TC was ardently declaiming my questionable family lineage at that point) It was the right track (pin broke completely uncoupling a section) and there was a very mild movement, no more that 10 degrees of line, to the LEFT side as I could suddenly feel “something” was wrong and I applied the brake pretty hard.

Now I don’t know what type of drive system was on WWII tanks. IE clutched turning or brake turning (is that the proper terminology?) Anyway I never observed any significant swerve when the occasional broken track occurred on other vehicles including M1A1's. As a matter of fact when we changed track paddy’s (Rubber inserts designed to minimize hard top road damage) we would uncouple one track and drive the vehicle straight off the track do the work and back it up again onto the completed track. If you tried to drive forward after removing one track the vehicle would gradually move to the side missing the track but not as sharply as you might think.

This is all anecdotal and I do not claim to know what the behavior of a WWII vehicle would be after a catastrophic hit or a suspension/track loss, but I don’t think it was as dramatic as you may expect.

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

Winning is why we play!

[This message has been edited by DekeFentle (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Forever Babra]

I've give that some thought and the behaviour of the vehicle is going to depend on where the track breaks. If the track breaks at the rear of the vehicle, it is going to keep a more or less straight path for the length of the remaining track. However, if the track breaks at the front and the road wheels immediately run off onto the ground, you're going to see significant swerve. Note that in the anecdote of Loza above, they were engaging Tigers frontally. Just something to consider.

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Can WWII Tank Gunners Actually target a specific area of a tank?

Yes, as I posted here before, the father of a friend of mine was an AT gunner on the Tripperspritze (37mm AT gun) in Italy and France. He told me they were were trained to aim at the turret ring, since the 37mm was to weak to achieve kill penetrations on most Allied AFVs, but with a round stuck in the turret ring, the tankers would make for home, and abandon the attack. He also said that this worked quite well IRL.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.