Leonidas Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Playing a PBEM Team DeSobry operation, I managed to lose a Sherman that I thought was parked safely behind a building. The movie shows a German tank getting a targeting line to the tank through the building. The German tank fires twice, immobilizing on the first shot and killing on the second. From the perspective of the German, only a corner of the Sherman is visible from behind the building, but the shot and targeting line goes straight through. What caused this? Is the building not exactly where it's shown to be? Was the German really targeting the exposed front corner of the Sherman? Or did the shell actually pass through the building? I've got the PBEM game file, if anyone wants to see it. I've seen posts about movie files, but I don't know how to make one of those that's different from a saved game file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 One question and a note: Question: Was the unit scale set to realistic? If not, the tank's position was not precisely shown. Note: What you see is a graphical representation of the "behind-the-scenes" calculations used to determine LOS, etc. In reality (well, the reality of the math behind the game, anyway), your tank was protruding from behind the building, and your opponent managed to hit that part. EDIT: clarification. [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 01-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted January 18, 2001 Author Share Posted January 18, 2001 Yes, the unit scale was realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leonidas: Yes, the unit scale was realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know if in real life tank commanders fired through buildings, but bear in mind there was at least one documented case of a German AP round going therough the front of one Sherman in a column, passed through the fighting compartment and (possibly) the engine, out the back of the tank, and into the second tank in line. I don't see why an AP shell couldn't be fired through a building first and then continue on into the armour of a Sherman - if the corner of the tank was exposed to view. Be an interesting tactic to use - and it seems real to me. Anyone know anything more? I know MGs were sometimes employed against the walls of buildings (as well as shaped charge weapons like PIATs) to attack infantry behind them - were tank cannon ever so employed? Desperate times call for desperate measures... Hmm, if you were the Tiger and your tank waited for the Sherman to expose itself fully before shooting, you'd be on here complaining that your Tiger AI is buggy! (grins) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Good post Leonidas. I have seen what you speak of a few times. First, I just sent Krazydawg a screenshot of a sherman targeting and firing a shot directly through a building, right through the middle of a building. Ut was during a test QB vs the AI. I was just playing a test of a hetzer vs a sherman and the game proceeded with no enemy contact until I came up upon a church. I had my hetzer manuvere directly behind the church for cover, unbeknowst to me was the sherman on the otherside of the hetzer. So here I was watching to my amazement, a hezter and a sherman on opposite sides of a church and the sherman targets the hetzer through thee church, and the hezter targets the sherman through the church, directly through the church roughly through the middle of the church, and the sherman with its fast turret gets off the first shot quickly, bouncing the shot off the hezters side/front armor. Anyway...I had seen similar frustrating situations with Veteren wespes where the decide to take a shot through a building ultimatly knocking themsleves out. I have been told that this is impossible though, and that unless its a bug that was not seen before, then it is not shooting through the building By the way...it seems more and more, that unless one carries some sort of weight around here, any mention of irregularities are mooted and the fire is extingished quickly. I don't mean to be mad about it, but it becomes very frustrating to bring up something that "does not exist" when I see it with my own eyes time aand time again. Maybe, as Slapdragon has recommended, I should present my view/case with more evidence for consideration of change, or more interest from other parties that have wieght to look at it more seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I don't know if in real life tank commanders fired through buildings, but bear in mind there was at least one documented case of a German AP round going therough the front of one Sherman in a column, passed through the fighting compartment and (possibly) the engine, out the back of the tank, and into the second tank in line. I don't see why an AP shell couldn't be fired through a building first and then continue on into the armour of a Sherman - if the corner of the tank was exposed to view. Be an interesting tactic to use - and it seems real to me. Anyone know anything more? I know MGs were sometimes employed against the walls of buildings (as well as shaped charge weapons like PIATs) to attack infantry behind them - were tank cannon ever so employed? Desperate times call for desperate measures... Hmm, if you were the Tiger and your tank waited for the Sherman to expose itself fully before shooting, you'd be on here complaining that your Tiger AI is buggy! (grins) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In reality, it's no problem for a sabot or HEAT round to go through a light building. I'm not sure if it's modeled in CM. Similarly, I'd LOVE to be able to order my tanks to fire into the smoke cloud created when the frightened enemy backs up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Sounds like you were a victim of the difference between the calculations and representations on the screen. Sometimes, that matter of inches is just enough to cost you that tank. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Leonidas: Yes, the unit scale was realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: Good post Leonidas. By the way...it seems more and more, that unless one carries some sort of weight around here, any mention of irregularities are mooted and the fire is extingished quickly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hear your pain, and don't mean to be the fire extinguisher in this case. I just remember this topic being brought up a long while back, and I've just restated the explanation that BTS gave back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 I can feel the pain too - last night I moved my Wasp carrier to close to some buildings - the Germans started chucking grenades with wild abandon, and the stupid carrier only back up about ten feet then sat there waiting to get blown up. But in reality - I was being punished for not employing my armour correctly - it served me right. There are many explanations as to why the guy didn't back up the hell out of there - panic, wounded driver, whatever. The problem with CM is that the detail is so minute with regards to things like armour penetration, yet the logic remains fuzzy with regards to the humans driving the tanks. I applaud everyone who does find genuine bugs in the programming - it benefits us all - but I also commend those who debunk the bugs when it applies. Surely that is what this forum is for - reasoned debate and discussion for the betterment of everyone. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Well put, Michael. I wish everyone on this forum displayed as much open-mindedness as you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted January 18, 2001 Author Share Posted January 18, 2001 Even though a tank can theoretically shoot through a light building, that should still seriously reduce the accuracy and power of the shot. I think the tank AI is the weakest part of CM, which is ironic considering all the work that went into shell vs. armor interactions. The current tank AI and other features of CM envision very fluid tank combat, with lots of cover smoke and backing up. But on defense your tanks sometimes do much better as armored AT guns. You want to be able to park them behind a building and take a surprise side shot as the enemy comes into view. But the tank AI doesn't like for tanks to sit still. American tanks in particular may take one shot, and then go into the backing up w/ smoke routine, even though they have time for several more shots against side armor before the slow German turret can bear on them. I hope that future patches or versions of CM will have many more options for controlling tanks. I usually do combined arms battles. Team DeSobry was my first armor-heavy engagement. I was disappointed at how difficult it was to defend with tanks in a town. I kept trying to hide my tanks behind buildings, thinking that my immobile half-hidden tanks should win gunfights against the attacker's moving and unhidden tanks. But I never seemed to get any protection from the buildings. Is this just my bad orders, or is CM not yet equipped to handle tank-building interactions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 I suspect it might be a combination. I've defended towns with tanks with some success. You just need to be REALLY careful about where you park it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: I've defended towns with tanks with some success.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just never against me. He,he, heh. ------------------ Jeff Newell TankDawg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 I was about to rebut your comments here, TankDawg, but after reviewing the latest turn, I'll refrain. [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 01-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 Two points: 1. As others have said, terrain and buildings in CM are not 100% exactly as you see them. There is some abstraction in almost everything. If you were targeted through the corner of a house then the house texture was not quite lined up where the computer thought it should be. 2. It does state in the manual that on rare occasions tank rounds may pass through a house. However, Steve has stated here that units can never have LOS through a house. I'm not sure how to reconcile those two statements. I think maybe the manual is right on this one. ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts