Why Do IS-1s Back Away From German Heavies?

[Treeburst155]

"Pz IV with kill chance none - cowered never"

This would seem to go against the self-preservation argument being put forward here to defend current Soviet behaviour. Did German tankers not exhibit the same level of desire for self-preservation? I think herein lies the major complaint. There is an apparent double standard. I wonder how the Pz IV would react in the same test if the IS-2s were changed to IS-1s?

Did the Pz IV properly identify the IS-2s?

Treeburst155 out.

[Tero]

Is this the same game engine feature used with infantry ?

If it is, how come the armour seems to run for cover the right way while the infantry modelling is totally broken ? Panicking vehicle crews do not panic ?

[Redwolf]

I can set up an example of T-34 fleeing towards Tigers in a minute.

[Redwolf]

Andreas, if you remembered the 2 "monster tanks releaved" threads you would have realized that reproducing the undesired retreat requires to reproduce the terrain situation. Just setting up a bunch of tanks in a simple set-up did never show the behaviour in it's annoying form.

I am irritated that you as a beta tester don't know or prefer to ignore this.

The annoyance in the end, BTW, was that the in that case ISU-122, hull down, with kill chance excellent and hit chance 1/3rd, targetting the side of a Panzer IV and ready to fire, started retreating before the first shot - thereby either not taking the shot at all or ruining the hit probablity by its movement. That is what is unrelaistic part is. And it did it constantly in that scenario on that hill. If it retreated after the shot because it has the low ROF - fine. But it didn't.

[Treeburst155]

I have a live, in-game, stand-and-fight armor confrontation going here in a PBEM!! A platoon of T-34s (85mm) have decided the Tiger at 920 meters is not a big enough threat to warrant backing off. All units involved are on roads, with the Tiger on significantly higher ground. My boys are fighting that big ugly cat!! One of them already repelled an 88mm hit to the turret. Undaunted, he holds fast, working frantically with his comrades to put Russian steel into the beast. Win or lose, I'm proud of this T-34 platoon. I'd be even more proud if they could hit the thing in the next minute or so. The Tiger is likely to start hitting with precision very soon.

Treeburst155 out.

[Tero]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I can set up an example of T-34 fleeing towards Tigers in a minute.

Roger that.

Did not recall seen anything indicating that happens.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Andreas, if you remembered the 2 "monster tanks releaved" threads you would have realized that reproducing the undesired retreat requires to reproduce the terrain situation. Just setting up a bunch of tanks in a simple set-up did never show the behaviour in it's annoying form.

What simple set-up? You are jumping to conclusions. As I explained, I had taken a real map, those were hunt across crest/hull-down situations that you would find in a standard QB. It was not a shooting range, the tanks were not in view when they started the turn. If I have to artificially design a map to make this behaviour happen, then it can't be much of a problem, now can it? Is that what you are saying?

Originally posted by redwolf:

I am irritated that you as a beta tester don't know or prefer to ignore this.

Well, I am irritated by people who mix the general issue (on which I have not expressed a view) into this discussion of the IS-1. I am also irritated that you are jumping to conclusions in the way you do. Why don't you just set up an example where an IS-1 runs away and send it to me instead of being irritated. Do something constructive.

[Schoerner]

I agree with JasonC's complaints.

Tank engagements could be made even better.

The fear of the German Tigers was only a problem for the western Allies - in 1943 almost every german tank suddenly had become a Tiger...

The soviet propaganda acted much better: the Tiger wasn't glorified and so the T34 crews continued believing in their tanks. This was extremely cruel to the own men, but nevertheless it was good for the morale.

But imo the retreating of JS can to some point be explained with soviet doctrine, that single Tigers were only allowed to be attacked with JS' in company-strength.

Besides the retreating problems, i hope that imo a much bigger problem will be solved in the next engine: slow turrets were not really a big problem for tanks on the move. I hope the next engine will manage to turn moving forward tanks into 'Mahlzeit' position, out of their movement, and not by stopping, turning the turret and then slowly turning the hull.

[Mr. Tittles]

The shermans will generally pop smoke and shoot smoke. Even when shooting smoke on the move (backwards move), it will get a general effect. A lone Tiger may find itself shrouded in smoke. This allows a flanking attempt and those flanking elements should use shoot n scoot tactics also.

The game is very unit-centric. A squad of men, in my opinion, act like an individual soldier instead of a group of men. An AFV SHOULD act like a individual soldier that has a good idea what the other individual 'soldiers' (tanks with radios) are doing/experiencing.

AFVs are largely an extension of the commander. The loader/radio-op and even the gunner are 'along for the ride'. The driver is the only person that may make snap-decisions like the commander and he is even limited to poorer optics than the commander.

[MikeyD]

I wouldn't mind the tank cowering (could be renamed 'auto shoot-&-scoot') if it was done properly. An IS-2 sees a target, stops, gets off a clean shot, then retreats. That's basically IS-2 tactics as described by the Germans themselves. But whenever the AI has a tank (from either side) retreat there's a good chance its going to wind- up broadside to the threat, which is unacceptable!

I think (a loooong time ago) BFC had responded that tank retreat was strongly tied to the likelyhood of getting holed by the opponent. But when you throw in extreme fog-of-war the IS-2 may not entirely be sure what its facing. If it thinks its facing a Tiger I instead of a PzIV the likelyhood of retreating against a minor threat increases. Has anyone tried testing tank retreat in partial FOW as opposed to extreme?

[dieseltaylor]

I agree with Cessna about tank crews tending to be blind[ish] and interested in self-preservation.

Furthermore there is not only borg spotting that people have the benefit of but a tendency to be braver than in RL.

I like playing the Russians , probably 50+ games worth and up to 25 tanks sometimes. I have seen some cowering and I have seen some stupid stand and fight when I want them to cower. But the beauty of the game is that it is not chess nad things do not always go exactly as you wish. It seems some people play to the mico managing level

and then do not like the result as the troops exercise discretion.

That rant aside as Russian I am fully aware of the pathetic AP loadout with the big tanks. If you get 10 rounds of AP you better be damm sure you are going to hit your target before you fire. Once it is all gone you are dead meat. I think this is factored into the larger tanks cower factor. Its fine to say I will kill it if I hit it but if you fire off your entire AP load at 1000 metres at a poxy MKIV you are going to regret it when something bigger turns up. I would regret it and so would my little digital tank crew.

Most German tanks have a decent amount of AP and will fire away merrily because there guns are accurate at range, will kill most of what they hit outright, and those that do not kill may damage. I have seen and had German tanks cower - normally at shorter ranges when presumably they know that even Russian chances of hitting are higher!

[RawRecruit]

In a PBEM I've just had a StuG IIIG pop smoke and reverse from a duel with a 'Valentine?' tank. My first couple of shots missed. They scored a track hit and a lower hull penetration, both with 'no serious damage'. Now, I've never duelled a Valentine before, but the StuGs 75/L48 is surely a match for it?

[Joachim]

Originally posted by RawRecruit:

In a PBEM I've just had a StuG IIIG pop smoke and reverse from a duel with a 'Valentine?' tank. My first couple of shots missed. They scored a track hit and a lower hull penetration, both with 'no serious damage'. Now, I've never duelled a Valentine before, but the StuGs 75/L48 is surely a match for it?

I found that the unit info for partially ID'd vehicles show the stats that is the most likely variant of the ID'd vehicle at that time period (e.g. a T34 in '43 is most likely a '43 variant.) ammo selection (Tungsten or AP) is based on that, too. So a PzIIIg might cower from a partially ID'd T34/41 in '43 which it would face in '41.

If there is a common Valentine that has very thick armor, the StuG may retreat.

Another important question:

Have you checked the movie file carfeully? If the Valentine was ID'd as something else when first spotted, the cowering may have been based on the first guess.

Gruß

Joachim

[RawRecruit]

Hadn't considered an earlier misidentification. I think that the StuGs gun should cope with any Valentine, though, going by the armour charts. I suppose that the TC just thought two successive hits were enough...and quite rightly so!

[Treeburst155]

I've just seen two Mark IVs back away from a lone IS-1 at 1100 meters. One of them is probably dead because of it too. Also recently seen was two IS-2s battling with two Tigers at about 920 meters. No cowering, even after several ricochets. From the Russian point of view, all enemy vehicles involved in these fights were fully identified.

Treeburst155 out.

[Mr. Tittles]

Is the Shoot'n'coot command immune to this 'cower' retrograde movement? It should be resistant to it at least. The thought being, they are not going to hang around anyway.

IRL I believe the driver has the tranny already in reverse and will pop the clutch as soon as he feels/hears the gun report.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Is the Shoot'n'coot command immune to this 'cower' retrograde movement? It should be resistant to it at least. The thought being, they are not going to hang around anyway.

No, not immune, if the shoot command (fast forward) involved driving for several meters in plain view of the enemy AFV, the driver will cancel the command and reverse after a few meters.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by RawRecruit:

In a PBEM I've just had a StuG IIIG pop smoke and reverse from a duel with a 'Valentine?' tank. My first couple of shots missed. They scored a track hit and a lower hull penetration, both with 'no serious damage'. Now, I've never duelled a Valentine before, but the StuGs 75/L48 is surely a match for it?

This happened to me last night with a late model Stug IV against several Shermans, some 75MM and some 76MM, in CMAK. The Stug had great position but must have decided that it was outnumbered. I kept sending it back in but it kept seeing more than one enemy vehicle and backing off. Only on occassion would it take a shot before popping smoke and reversing out.

[dieseltaylor]

Reminded me of trying to get Shermans to go against a Hetzer head on at short range, or even long range. Smarter than me they would not do it.

[Andreas]

From arnhemarchive.org

The South Staffords were being heavily attacked by tank and self-propelled guns, but they weren't able to bring up any anti-tank guns to repel them. Mortars were effectively being fired at point blank range upon German infantry, but the Staffords had to rely on PIAT's to deal with the armour. Lieutenant Georges Dupenois kept several tanks at bay with his PIAT, while Major Jock Buchanan and Cain drew a lot of enemy fire by running around searching for ammunition for him. Cain did not believe that any tanks were actually disabled during the action, but the hits did encourage them to withdraw; even firing at the turrets with Bren guns forced them to move. The PIAT ammunition ran dry at 11:30, and from then on the tanks had free reign over the area and proceeded to blow the defenceless troopers out of the buildings they occupied.

Clearly this shows that tank cower behaviour did exist. That does not mean that the way CMBB handles it correctly, of course, but it shows that tank crews had a self-preservation instinct in real life, even against low-level threats. This has to be allowed for in a game purporting to be realistic. Jack Carr's example is very good at showing that - I see nothing wrong with the Stug cowering in those circumstances.

And again, if this behaviour is observed in CMAK, then you must collect the movie files and send them to the support email with a clear explanation of what you think is wrong, if you want action to be taken in amending the game code. Recounting interesting tidbits here is totally pointless, because the parameters of the situation are completely unclear.

[Mr. Tittles]

Thats sort of an odd example. Its more than likely taking place during street fighting and the 'cowering' (by the armor) could have been from the accompanying infantry forces being stripped away by mortar fire. The tanks/SPs then withdrew. They didnt 'cower'. They were kept at bay but that does not mean that they did not fight back from some distance or by using shoot n scoot techniques (theres mention of enemy fire being drawn).

I think the main point of this thread is the backing away from the mere sight of an enemy vehicle that may not even be targeting the 'cowerer'.

Again, I think that shoot n scoot WAS a realistic tactic used by experienced armor. The game should supress this self-preservation impulse unless an actual threat is targeting the vehicle.