Accuracy While Firing On the Move (OR FAST) in CMBO

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Cromwell had a 'block' of hits on the first or second shot at first then settled down to missing all the time so I think it got 'lucky' on some of those.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a flawed interpretation of your data. Just because the tank got a few hits at the beginning and less for the rest of the time, doesn't mean the hits it got were somehow 'wrong' or 'lucky'. (Luck is considered to be a good thing, so 'chance' would be a better term.) By your logic, it could equally have been 'luck' when the tank missed. Maybe it should have hit all the time. Were the results not 'random' enough for you to believe them? Does 'random' have to be 'regular' in order to be credible? Think about it.

[jshandorf]

In other places on this board hit chances have been thoroughly discussed, and from what I remember they were in agreement that a level, montionless tank firing at a target at 500 meters had about 100% chance of hitting it.

Now.. throw in moving, fear, inexperience, target movement, and cover I can still see how anything under 500 meters is going to get ALOT of hits.

I really think people need to quit over analyzing this game...really. In all my games I have seen the entire gammut of situations. I have seen plain jane M4 Shermand bounce rounds from 100 meters to a Panther KO from a stuart over 500 meters away.

Just PLAY THE GAME, really, please. In time you will see enough things to make you realize that tank combat in CM is random and unpredictable enough to satisfy any one person's complaints, but over all the game simulates what Charles and Steve imagined. If it didn't then I am sure they would have changed it long ago.

Jeff

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

This is a flawed interpretation of your data. Just because the tank got a few hits at the beginning and less for the rest of the time, doesn't mean the hits it got were somehow 'wrong' or 'lucky'. (Luck is considered to be a good thing, so 'chance' would be a better term.) By your logic, it could equally have been 'luck' when the tank missed. Maybe it should have hit all the time. Were the results not 'random' enough for you to believe them? Does 'random' have to be 'regular' in order to be credible? Think about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am only a layman so go easy on my interpretations. I hear what you are saying and I agree chance is a better word, but seeing the Cromwell get 5 first shot kills to the Sherman's one while the Greyhound/Stuart combined got 5 first shot hits/kills, it "appeared" to me the Cromwell was luckier.

Ron

[Slapdragon]

"Luck" can be expressed in statistics. One statistical model is known as the law of large numbers. In small numbers of cases (as seen in any particular situation in any particular game) as statitician would be unsurprised to see unusual results. You need a large number of events with controlled variables to make much headway here. For example, you can create a "shooting gallery" with 20 Churchhills shooting at 20 Panthers and run the event 20 times. The you record would then have only a 1 in 20 chance of being off more than the tests standard error.

[aka_tom_w]

bump for the benefit of the prime time evening crowd in the EST

-tom w

[Tero]

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

US gyros were designed to fire on the move, but they only handled vertical motion, not horizontal, which was handled by the gunner who kept the tank gun trained, and whose controls were fin enough to track objects. Accuracy did go down since the gunner needed to vary the lead on his target , but hit could and did get made (I should not that firing on the move was usually the realm of the TD units, whose training at that was much more extensive. This is especially true with the M18 crews which were considered elite and had the highest training standards, but this would be modlled by changing the crews experience rating, not by changing how the tank fired).

As to speed and gyros. Gyros work at any speed. The only question for a gyro is does the weapon it is attached to have a moment arm capable of swinging through a full range of motion that bumps in the terrain are putting it through. On very rough terrain, the answer could be no, and the weapon will not track a target because the gryo cannot physically make the gun do what it cannot do, fire above or below its fixed depression.

It is similar in a way to skeet shooting. A shooter can hit a slow or fast flung skeet, but only if they are lead by the promer distance. So moving fast over everything but rough terrain and moving slow should make no difference to the gyro. The issue is how well crews were trained with the gyros in the first place.

I think that the issue is not that US vehicles hit to often, but that players in QBs choose regular and veteran crews too often, making them better shots on the fly and leading to a potentially gamey tactic. If US players used green troop more often, to represent less experienced US tankers prevalent during 1944, it would not seem like the Shermans were so good (they are not all that good anyway, merely ok).

Allied TDs are a different story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you provide your source ? Every account I have read states that the Allied tankers disengaged the stabilizer because when it was malfuctioning it would jam the gun at the set elevation (which never happens in CM ) and/or to facilitate reloading and that they were as a rule, if not ordered, then exhorted to stop for firing to increase the chance of hitting the target.

[aka_tom_w]

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

Can you provide your source ? Every account I have read states that the Allied tankers disengaged the stabilizer because when it was malfuctioning it would jam the gun at the set elevation (which never happens in CM ) and/or to facilitate reloading and that they were as a rule, if not ordered, then exhorted to stop for firing to increase the chance of hitting the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, that is also my understanding of the actual realworld, historical use of the things.

They were largely disengaged by the crews as they were a nuisance (mostly). Or so I have read?

-tom w

[coe]

Hmmm, hunt seems to be the tank is moving

a bit slow, stops and shoots and moves on

What about fast hunt? That is the tank

is going along fast, (also its ability to

spot is much poorer) but when it does find a

target it stops and shoots. Of course one

would assume that the first shot would be

far less likely to hit than in a regular hunt

mode.

[aka_tom_w]

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

Hmmm, hunt seems to be the tank is moving

a bit slow, stops and shoots and moves on

What about fast hunt? That is the tank

is going along fast, (also its ability to

spot is much poorer) but when it does find a

target it stops and shoots. Of course one

would assume that the first shot would be

far less likely to hit than in a regular hunt

mode.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually no that is the problem

If the unit in question is a Greyhound and if it is stopped and it has spotted its target, if you give it a Fast move order it will continue to aim and it will Fire on the FAST move (without Stopping) and it is surprisingly accurate.

If the unit is out of Los but it has been identified by another friendly unit, you can target that unit then make a quick Dash (from cover to cover) with the Greyhound on FAST move and it will shoot while going FAST the sec the LOS is clear, without stopping even though it had no LOS when it started its fast move.

Allied units like the Greyhound and the Hellcat shoot WITHOUT stopping on the Fast move and they get WAY more hits than I would consider realistically possible, while firing on the fast move. That was the point of the original post in this thread.

-tom w

[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[coe]

Actually I was thinking more about the GErman tanks... where supposedly the instruction manual says for them to move like mad halt fire, then move like mad...

can't be good for the engine!

[Tero]

>Actually I was thinking more about the

>GErman tanks... where supposedly the

>instruction manual says for them to move

>like mad halt fire, then move like mad...

>

>can't be good for the engine!

Way better than on your complexion if you start just sitting there.

The tank is helpless when it is reloading so why not throw the other guys aim off by moving while you reload. And for the better part of the war the German TC had the edge in visibility over the rest of the participating TC's.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

This is a flawed interpretation of your data. Just because the tank got a few hits at the beginning and less for the rest of the time, doesn't mean the hits it got were somehow 'wrong' or 'lucky'. (Luck is considered to be a good thing, so 'chance' would be a better term.) By your logic, it could equally have been 'luck' when the tank missed. Maybe it should have hit all the time. Were the results not 'random' enough for you to believe them? Does 'random' have to be 'regular' in order to be credible? Think about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fenomenon could also be attributed to some of the variables involving and pertaining first shot hit propability and cross section targeting and not just the stabilizer.

[coe]

My bad, sorry I reposted this a second time, someone please delete this double of a post

Actually I was thinking more about the GErman tanks... where supposedly the instruction manual says for them to move like mad halt fire, then move like mad...

can't be good for the engine!

[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: coe ]

[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: coe ]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

As a real-world comparison-

modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but 'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean driving cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down motion, nor driving very fast. I don't believe it would be possible to fire modern M1A1s while 'on the move' in any but these very limited circumstances (i.e. relatively flat terrain, relatively low speed), for two reasons 1) it would be hard to keep the cross hairs on the target, and 2) it would be hard for the crew to keep themselves still enough to even look through the optics well enough to aim (the gunner would be thrown around the inside of the vehicle too much). And unless 1940's technology was much better than 1990's technology, I suspect the ability to fire on the move under any but very rare circumstances, even with a highly trained crew and a gyrostabilizer, is grossly overrated.

And-

I just read a book on Kursk which quoted a german gunner as saying the ideal range for engagements was about 800 meters. So what ranges should we expect in CM2? I would think about the same as in CMBO. While the optics and penetration of main guns may have allowed extremely high ranges (2000, 3000 meters in incredibly rare, extreme cases), I suspect that due to real-world terrain, actual engagements were probably conducted, 95% of the time, 0-1000 meters or so.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the BEST posts in this thread on this topic.

I hope this post and particularily this sentence:

"As a real-world comparison-modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but 'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean driving cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down motion, nor driving very fast."

..complete with REAL world actual firing on the move experience in a M1A1, will be considered when it is determined how ANY of the tanks or vehicles in CMBB are permitted to fire while on the FAST move.

I don't believe for a minute that firing on the FAST move is an "abstration for stoping and firing and then moving fast again" the units don't do that, they speed across the open country side at 55- 65 mph and they shoot, and they can target and get hits while doing so. The hunt move works GREAT, the unit slowly advances, finds a target, stops, aims and fires at the target until it is destroyed or the turn ends and it gets new orders. THIS order works very well.

BUT in CMBB I hope there is some new way to model the result and accuracy of shots fired while on the FAST move.

-tom w

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[PzKpfw 1]

German tank SOP much like most combatants in WW2 was stop, fire, move repeat as needed. The US Shermans despite gyro capability for the most I have read halted to fire as well.

I have no clue if in AFVs moveing 'fast' are being abstaracted as each time they fire they have halted the animiation clearly does not reflect any stopping to fire. I have seen Greyhounds, Stuarts, & Shermans score multiple hits while moveing fast over rough terrain in CM myself, heh ask Bastables what 2 Greyhounds did to some of my units going warp 8 , in one of our PBEMs Ie, took out 2 bunkers with gun hits on 1st round hits etc.

Anyway maybe Steve can drop in & comment & eplain a lil more on the abstractions or lack of.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

[QB]

Anyway maybe Steve can drop in & comment & eplain a lil more on the abstractions or lack of.

Regards, John Waters

Hi John

It is my guess (Gee I sure have been doing a heck of alot of guessing lately) that Steve, if he chooses to comment, will tell us that a targeting and accuracy modifier is build into the targeting algorythm for units on the move, and units on the fast move have their chance to hit reduced (somewhat) to account for the fact that they are moving or moving fast.

The thing is they seem to hit very well on the fast move despite whatever accuracy modifier was coded on to the targeting-while-on-the-FAST-move-chance-to-hit-algorythm to reduce the chance of a hit. IMHO

-tom w

[Ben Galanti]

One question I've always wondered is if moving vehicles get second shot bonuses?

I know stationary vehicles will get more accurate the more times they shoot at a target. A moving vehicle might be able to get a better feel for range with it's shots, but I would think it would be virtually like first time firing for every shot...

Ben

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

One question I've always wondered is if moving vehicles get second shot bonuses?

I know stationary vehicles will get more accurate the more times they shoot at a target. A moving vehicle might be able to get a better feel for range with it's shots, but I would think it would be virtually like first time firing for every shot...

Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a REALLY good point.

Good question, does a vehicle with a high ROF (like for example the US Greyhound {surprise!}) get the bonus of target acquisition while moving fast?

In the game the way it works now I will bet that it does. Those Greyhounds can get several shots off while traveling fast and I would bet the 2nd and subsquent shots while fast moving are modeled with the target aquisition bonus.

If that is the case, in CMBO then this too should be reviewed and re-evaluated for CMBB.

GREAT point!

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Well...

Just thought I would bump this one since Steve seems to be in a question answering mood this afternoon.

Hint hint...

any comments Steve?

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

bump

[Treeburst155]

My only qualifications for the following statement: Gunner, M60A1 gyro-stabilized tank, 1975-78.

There should be no firing allowed during FAST movement. HE and AP fire should be allowed at MOVE speed with terrible accuracy and reduced rate of fire. Modelling of gyro-stabilizers should be completely done away with.

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Rother]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

My only qualifications for the following statement: Gunner, M60A1 gyro-stabilized tank, 1975-78.

There should be no firing allowed during FAST movement. HE and AP fire should be allowed at MOVE speed with terrible accuracy and reduced rate of fire. Modelling of gyro-stabilizers should be completely done away with.

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My only qualifications for this statement: Gunner M2 Bradley (gyro)& M551-NTC (no gyro) 90-94.

I gotta agree with that and what Mr Smith said about the M1. You aren't going to hit a damn thing on the move even with a gyro. You always stop, fire and then move.

Rother

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Rother ]

[aka_tom_w]

thanks for the comments!

Steve?

How about it for CMBB?

No firing for ANY vehicle on the FAST move.

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

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

thanks for the comments!

Steve?

How about it for CMBB?

No firing for ANY vehicle on the FAST move.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you may have toi be careful even with this, because the Russian did fire when attacking, and attacking meant foir the tank / tank soldier attack getting the SMG troops through the front lines as fast as possible. Russian tanks fired on the move going at speed, trying to rely on shock rather than indvidual tank accuracy (which is the early war years was not so good anyway, as conscripts received fewer and fewer hours of training).

In CM:B2B it may be needed to do more research on this subject. Certainly we know that gyros where used by US forces, US tanks fired on the move, and even Germans started firing on the move in Normandy during 1944 and achieved success with practice. This is contrary to common public opinion on the subject and came out from research done by BTS. If they had not done that research, then the old party line that I think originated with Don Greenwood that gyros where all disconnected (I suspect that Greenwood needed this to be the case because Squad Leader had a tough time modelling shooting on the move) would have stayed with Combat Mission.

So for example, we may need to find out at what speed was an armored spearhead attack carried out. It was faster than walking speed, because Russian tank troops that fell off where screwed, but how fast was it? If it is 25 mph, then that is a speed we know tanks fired at.

Next, we do not know how target where acquired. I suspect that more area targets where engaged for suppressive effect to protect riding infantry, but I do not know that for sure. But it would be interesting to discover that Russian tanks basically attempted to hit German tanks during these attacks by lobbing lots of steel at them, hoping one tank in a platoon or even company would hit. This would be similar to how infantry fire their weapons, using mass rather than aimed accuracy if it were true.

[Andreas]

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

No firing for ANY vehicle on the FAST move.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I absolutely disagree with this. If you say 'horrendous' or even 'no accuracy', fine. But no firing does not chime with Red Army and early war British Army SOP at all, unless you can show that this SOP was for slow move only. (which it might have been, but I would want to be sure of that)

You should still be able to fire, IMO. Much reduced ROF, 0% to hit chance, whatever, but not just saying you can not do it, regardless of fast or slow. There was a remark in the piece Mark IV produced in the other thread on German gyro research, saying that German tankers actually did fire on the move, and it implied that there might have been successes by very experienced gunners with power traversed turrets.

Also, somebody else here (was it Scipio?) remarked about current German Leopard tanks being able to fire while moving at (can't remember the speed). Maybe different equipment (i.e. better than the US)? So far the arguments against this appear to come from US tankers. What about other countries?