Doug Williams Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 ....and just to show that the American HTs are vulnerable to MG fire I did the exact same tests, only this time pitting an American M3 HT against two MG42s. Results: 1st test: HT KOed in 8 seconds 2nd test: HT KOed in 20 seconds 3rd test: HT KOed in 8 seconds 4th test: HT KOed in 2 seconds 5th test: HT KOed in 29 seconds Both this test and the .50 cal test were done with Regular infantry and HT crews. Conclusion: Don't drive your HT by it's lonesome into an enemy MG team. ------------------ expert \'ek-,spert'\ n : someone who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Kingfish: Jeff, Picture 40 guys blazing away with rifles, SMGs, and LMGs (in addition to grenades)on a lone HT for 60 seconds. Now picture that HT rolling away after that. Some guys had the HTs not only survive but kill most of the platoon in the process. That's what everyone is talking about. Wow, sounds like some strange scene out of the wild wild west. Your guys can "blaze away" all they want but if they are beyond the range where small arms fire will penetrate the armor on a HT, no matter how minimal it is, you mihgt as well be shooting spit balls. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 May I ask if the HTs in everyone's tests have been firing back with their machineguns? Seems to me that there should be a difference between closing with a buttoned halftrack and closing with a halftrack that is firing back at you with a MG or two. Wouldn't the MG's suppression fire slow the assault somewhat? And remember that most HT MG's have some sort of protection for the gunner, while the assaulters are probably in the open and slightly below the attacker. Just wondering if this variable is part of the observations. Martyr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnno Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 I don't regulary post to BTS anymore because I am way to busy with my website and online club for Combat Mission players. I have tried to read as many of these replies as possible and have found no solution yet but I assume BTS is looking into as they have said. I have 70 members that play Combat Mission, I have 3 tournmaents going on and am about to start a campaign hosted by the website for my members and I'm very concerned. The tournament I have going now has scenarios constructed by myself and is basically infantry and mechanized in theme and in playtesting I have noticed considerable effects. The halftracks/open top vehicles seem to have become close to invulnerable to any type of indirect fire. They are not invincible but I definately noticed that they are way to lucky. This will have significant impact on my tournament that I have made; as all the members in my club switched over to 1.12 version so they will notice the difference. I'm hoping that something is being done (As I'm sure it is) and I have ad additional question is the coding that is effected in this topic indirect fire against any open top vehicle? I mean I have noticed the difference between Halftracks, Universal Carriers and perhaps T8's but would vehicles like the Hummel, Nashorn, Hetzer, and Allied open top tank destroyers be effected also? I'm asking BTS to perhaps answer this directly as I have 40 members in this tournament playing that will be effected? I know you guys are extremely busy but if you have not seen my website yet you should know that my website has 70 members of dedicated hardcore Combat Mission players. Please email if you would but I suppose a public message board answer would be quicker and easier for you that would be great if you could do that also. Basically I just need you to re-verify if this is a problem as I think it is and ...I could postpone the next round of the tournament I have if so. Johnno Webmaster for Dogs of War [This message has been edited by Johnno (edited 02-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Ok, I did some more tests. One SPW 251/1 against one American rifle platoon with no AT weapons (both regular). Test was done on a 40x40 island with the platoon surrounding the HT and ordered to target it at all times. Yes, the HT does move around a lot, and yes, it does shoot back. 1st test: HT KOed in 2 minutes, 35 seconds and causes 30 allied casualties. 2nd test: HT KOed in 1 min, 10 sec. 4 allied casualties 3rd test: HT KOed in 2 min, 40 sec. 18 allied casualties 4th test: HT KOed in 2 min, 17 sec. 0 casualties 5th test: HT KOed in 3 min, 5 sec. O casualties Conclusion: I think the HT lasts too long. One more test: Same thing, but this time a PZIVG against the same rifle platoon. The tank doesn't move around as much as the HT, but protects itself with smoke. Squads are ordered to move closer when this happens. 1st test: Allied surrender on Turn 4. Tank wins. 2nd test: Tank immobilized in Turn 8 (yes, turn 8!). Tank surrenders on turn 9. Causes 25 allied casualties. Conclusion: Perhaps *all* AFVs are too resistant to infantry close assaults? ------------------ expert \'ek-,spert'\ n : someone who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 17, 2001 Author Share Posted February 17, 2001 For whoever was saying soething about the game being unplayable, you need to get some perspective. I am convinced this is a bug, but in most cases it is not going to change the outcome of a game. While infantry may have trouble killing half-tracks, all the other ways to kill them (and there are a lot) are still perfectly viable. The reason I saw this was that I was playing a mech QB, where neither of us bothered to get much in the way of AT guns since we knew that there would not be a lot of armor. In most cases, halftracks are dead long before they ever get close to infantry anyway. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter White Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I have a naive question: If the non-tracked half of a half-track has tires, shouldn't it be trivial for a squad to immobilize the thing? From 5 feet or 75 feet, I would think 2-3 veteran soldiers could accomplish this feat almost instantly, much less a squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: For whoever was saying soething about the game being unplayable, you need to get some perspective. I am convinced this is a bug, but in most cases it is not going to change the outcome of a game. While infantry may have trouble killing half-tracks, all the other ways to kill them (and there are a lot) are still perfectly viable. The reason I saw this was that I was playing a mech QB, where neither of us bothered to get much in the way of AT guns since we knew that there would not be a lot of armor. In most cases, halftracks are dead long before they ever get close to infantry anyway. Jeff Heidman Agreed. While we all want our favorite wargame to be perfect in all its ways, and this topic is certainly worthy of notice, there have been (many long) moments in perusing this thread where the thought "Tempest in a Teapot" kept drifting through my mind... Take care all. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyStrike Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I don't know why more isn't being done testing the same scenario under different versions of CM - any differences should be quickly apparent. Its been suggested before in this thread. So, run a test 10 times under 1.12 and 10 times under 1.1 or 1.05. This should highlight any differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Originally posted by Martyr: May I ask if the HTs in everyone's tests have been firing back with their machineguns? Seems to me that there should be a difference between closing with a buttoned halftrack and closing with a halftrack that is firing back at you with a MG or two. Wouldn't the MG's suppression fire slow the assault somewhat? And remember that most HT MG's have some sort of protection for the gunner, while the assaulters are probably in the open and slightly below the attacker. Just wondering if this variable is part of the observations. Martyr Martyr, The answer is yes with my 40 tests. Out of which, the rifle platoon was entirely eliminated by the HT six times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Originally posted by Peter White: I have a naive question: If the non-tracked half of a half-track has tires, shouldn't it be trivial for a squad to immobilize the thing? From 5 feet or 75 feet, I would think 2-3 veteran soldiers could accomplish this feat almost instantly, much less a squad. Peter White, IIRC, the tires are solid for that very reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddeath Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 They are the halftracks made by the W J Clinton Corp of Little Rock Ark. Nothing can hit them, mud won't stick on them, and even if they do suck, they don't swallow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degrees of Frost Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: I bet when a Humber parked in front of you, couple of meters away, leveling the 40mm gun right between your eyes, you would sit there happily beside your mortar, hand in hand with your comrades from the rest of the crew, and sing "neener neener, can't hurt us, doesn't have HE, only AP, 40mm AP doesn't hurt us, we wear helmets...." And the observant crew members might think "thats an interesting Humber mark to see in CMBO - or have things changed in v1.12" Why has the poor Humber had is teeth ripped out ? This particularly ugly AC only gets one MG in CMBO. My understanding is that even the most underarmed Humber had two machine guns. Some got the 15mm Besa in the turret - some got a 37mm gun others the 40mm. I don't know which marks saw action on the Western front but I am pretty sure I have seen pictures of Humbers rumbling around Europe with turrets sporting guns bigger than a machinegun. And no Staghounds ... imagine an AC with a 6-pounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 I can only speak from personal experience. Although never in combat I always hated driving around in AAVs (the closest thing the Marine Corps has to APCs). The M16A2 service rifle (5.56 NATO) and AK-47 have max penetration out to 200 meters, and can punch through the AAV's "armor" out to that point. Forget close assaults, a squad should be able to toast certain IFVs within 100 meters at least. And while that rifle round has enough punch to go in one side of the vehicle it doesn't have enough penetration to go out the other side. That means my 20 Marines in the back (yeah we were never able to quite fit two full squads in there) just went through a rifle round blender and are now a quivering pile of jelly(meaning, ironically, in this case troops are better off in a truck). Compare that to how hard it is to kill those 20 men deployed on the ground and I'll rather walk than ride any day. The rifle rounds used in WWII were much heavier than those used today with better penetration characteristics. But for practical purposes the 30-06 round is pretty similar to the 7.76 NATO. A M1 Garand could certainly make swiss cheese of a 'track. At a somewhat closer range (certainly 50 meters and most likely further out) .45 FMJ would do a job on the 'track too, especially if fired from a Thompson SMG (.45 rounds are after all only pistol rounds and have limited penetration; which is where the .45 gets it's power from: all the kinetic energy is absorbed by the target knocking it flat as opposed to a rifle {or 9mm pistol} round that punches a hole and keeps going, losing little of it's energy). Anyway, my point is in real life a half-track wouldn't survive more than 10 seconds against a squad IF: 1. The track was stationary. 2. The squad is not green. I would say a moving track would get 10 seconds added to its life (unless in the case of ambush of course). And a green squad might actually run away from it depending upon their training and leadership. [This message has been edited by DevilDog (edited 02-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 BUMP Good points, DevilDog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Okay, If you want to see a POSSIBLE in game example of HT "endurance", d/load this file: http://home.att.net/~ronin115/HT_Demo.cmc It's scenario #4 of the Arnhem Operation. A German HT is stuck on the ALlied side of the bridge among alot of wreckage. All my troops in the surrounding buildings are out of Heavy Bombs. There ARE 2 PIAT's down the road on the right targetting the HT. First time I played the turn, the HT took an ungodly amount of "grenades" and then broke through and killed the two PIATS!!! Second time I played it, the HT remained stuck, but survived 48 "grenades"! Your results will vary, because you will have to hit GO and process a new turn after you fire it up. I'm not saying this is "wrong" as I don't know how the realism factor would actually play out in this situation, but it MAY serve as a good example of super HT's v. "grenades"/assaults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly's Heros Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Just tried your scenario and I get through every time if I make the Piat's go to ground (i.e. I make them hide). The HT isn't even phased by the grenades and the pummeling it is getting from the guys right next to the bridge. They are 10m away, which is 30 yards, but I would believe that is close enough to kill an HT. When the Piat's are awake, they always take out the HT in about 24 seconds. This was very consistent across 8 different re-runs. Some kills early, but in general it took about 24 seconds for the Piat to kill the HT, never any longer than that. I'm not sure why the grenades had no effect, but I think the armor rating for HTs is off somewhere or the bug is specific to the HT type. Has anyone tested this problem with trucks? Maybe this is a more general problem? All I know is that IMHO, there is no way that HT should have survived on the bridge with that kind of attention and the fact that it had to slow down to get past the wrecks. IT was a sitting duck. This truly is a bug or a database corruption problem as far as I am concerned. By the way, this is still the best damn tactical WWII computer wargame I have ever played. Bret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Has anyone tested this problem with trucks? Maybe this is a more general problem? IMO, more testing needs to be done on the survivability of AFV's vs infantry close assaults. After having a PZIVG eliminate an entire infantry platoon while trapped together on a 40x40 island, I'm not so sure the problem is only with the halftracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Originally posted by Doug Williams: IMO, more testing needs to be done on the survivability of AFV's vs infantry close assaults. After having a PZIVG eliminate an entire infantry platoon while trapped together on a 40x40 island, I'm not so sure the problem is only with the halftracks. I would like to concur and agree with that. There have been other concerns posted here about the 'generous" survivabillity of other open top AVFs like the Hellcat against close assaults. Perhaps all open top AVFs should be tested? I would like to guess or propose that this issue is somewhat of a challenge for Charles and Steve and Matt and Dan at BTS as we can see they REALLY want to get on with CM2 and I'm sure Charles was confident that once v1.12 was out the door coding work on CMBO was complete. I am still not sure if they are willing to admit there is a problem here that they will address and patch or if they are trying to tell us it is "fine" the way it is and there will be no patch. I have been reading this thread and following this board trying to figure out if they figure it is fine the way it is OR if there can see a problem here that they will address and patch. Does anyone else know if they have come out firmly and directly on either side of this issue. Perhaps they are still undecided internally and some factions are saying we can live with it, and other factions are suggesting it "should" be fixed but there is really no time left to fix it? Now thats all just random conspiracy based conjecture and speculation on my part, but in lue of any firm "official" statement to the contrary I suggest internal disagreement as to how to deal with this one. I think Charles was hinting earlier in this thread that it was fine the way it is and he has looked at it and is now focusing his attention back to CM2. any other comments suggestions or speculation from the peanut gallery? (I'm also in the peanut gallery BTW ! ) -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Desultory testing here suggets the 'bug'- if it is a bug- crept into the game between 1.1b16 and 1.1. Of course, it could have been intentional, a minor adjustment, from BTS' POV, to close combat routines . They do seem more reticent on this issue than others that roiled the forum in the past like relative turret speeds or Jeep MGs. I'm confident their ultimate decsion will be the right one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Napoleon1944 Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Matt said last night that 1.12 is the final patch, so we will have to live with it. ------------------ The only enemy I fear is nature. -Napoleon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Sigh... That's what I noticed while in CMHQ chat too. Looks like no more patches. WHY did it have to be a problem w/ infantry??? WHY??? WHYYYYYY????? Sorry... it's just that I'm an infantry player... used to be cool that I could take on vehicles with my platoons... sniff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 We probably shouldn't jump to any conclusions yet, since there has been no final statement either way on this board. There are lots of us posting here, but Charles and Steve--ultimately the only two people who can make the decision--probably have things to do other than checking this thread every fifteen minutes. And it *is* the weekend, after all... Martyr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunny Bunny Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Chup had an excellent point. Those greandes flying through the air are the graphical representation of the squad assaulting the track. They are not meant to be representative of what might really be happening. Let's be realistic here. You do not need a grenade to kill a halftrack from 10 meters. Just blow the driving compartment away with a submachine gun. Jeff Heidman If they make to easy to kill a HT, they will have to lower the purchase price. It will just be a bit stronger than a Jeep !! Regards, GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Originally posted by Gunny Bunny: If they make to easy to kill a HT, they will have to lower the purchase price. It will just be a bit stronger than a Jeep !! Regards, GB The complaint isn't really that an HT should be incredibly weak. The complaint right now is that my troops would rather close assault a Tiger than a HT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts