Tanks wasting AP on dead target

[BlackVoid]

The introduction of the 'death clock' brought with itself a very unpleaseant side effect.

Tanks frequently waste a lot of AP rounds on an already dead target. Lots of times, I know already that the target is dead, yet my tank is shooting at it again and again. This is also very dangerous if there are more enemies around.

I would not remove the death clock from the game, but some improvements would be welcome.

Suggestions:

1. Tanks should catch fire more easily. A burning tank is a rare sight on the CM battlefield. Even a tank penetrated numerous times with large caliber AP (75mm+), catches fire very rarely. In all the accounts I read, I read about burning tanks and I find it strange that they burn so rarely in CM.

2. If a tank on the move is hit, then stops and does not turn turret, it should be assumed dead by the Tac Ai.

3. Maximum time for death clock should be reduced. If the target does not shoot back its dead. If I can see this, the TacAI should see this too.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

The introduction of the 'death clock' brought with itself a very unpleaseant side effect.

Tanks frequently waste a lot of AP rounds on an already dead target.

I don't think that's a side-effect so much as an intended effect.

Tanks waste shots on dead targets in combat and on exercise. Why wouldn't you want them to in CM?

All the best,

John.

[Sergei]

It was the practise to shoot at them until they burned or were mangled into smithereens, even if they had been abandoned. But I have noticed in CMBB that when a gun achives penetrations and the target shows signs of having the death clock ticking, they will take on more active threats. Just recently I had an ATG assumably kill a tank with frontal penetration, then it switched to a living tank coming behind it. The second tank was abandoned, after which the gun retargeted the tank it had pounded earlier.

[Bone_Vulture]

I agree with Sergei: the AI seems to use considerable logic, and switch to more active threats should they appear before the initially targeted vehicle is identified as a knockout.

[GRUMLIN]

In a recent Qb my KV1 got front penetrated by a STUG, crew shocked, sat there for 40 seconds or so. The human player retargetted the STUG elsewhere. When I could re control the crew, I was able to kill the STUG.

And THATS why the deathclock is great.

Grum

[Determinant]

I understand that is very difficult to know whether an armoured target has been damaged or destroyed by a hit. CMBB, as in so much else, is perfectly realistic in this regard. It is perhaps a pity that the 'hit and penetration' information cannot be turned off for EFOW - this gives you much more info than your crews would probably have.

Interestingly the problem is still with us. One of the key advantages of Depleted Uranium ammo is that its pyrotechnic effect almost invariably causes the target to catch fire. You can see at a glance which targets are dead - they are burning. Conventional AP does not have the same effect - unless being fired into a 'Tommy Cooker' Sherman I suppose...

[Mattias]

I set up an elite Pak40 covering the end of a ridgeline from behind which a platoon of T34s appeared, one after the other, at an interval of about 15-20 seconds.

The gun expended 24 rounds in order to destroy the 4 T34s. The high ROF meant that quite a lot of ammunition was expended since a lot of rounds went into ”dead” tanks but I would much rather have it that way than the opposite, ”too” few hitting home in time. And hey, four tanks at the price of 24 AP rounds is a terrific exchange no matter how you look at it.

Now, as for the AI’s behaviour in a target rich environment I can only say it conducted itself splendidly, I don’t think I could not have done it better had I manned the gun myself. At one point there was three ”alive” (not knocked out or abandoned) tanks in LOS and the AI cycled through them expertly, concentrating on those showing signs of life and then going back through the line using some kind of logic that, if anything, seemed to be based on better information than that readily available to the player.

(The last observation is not based on scientific study, nor is it intended as an inflammatory remark)

All in all I was very happy with the way the AI performed.

M

[ April 21, 2003, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[BlackVoid]

But why are tanks burning so rarely?

[MeatEtr]

It also depends on which tanks. Some tanks just simply didn't brew up as easy as others. Tanks can be very heavily damaged but never in danger of brewing up. I for one would also like to see tanks brew up just a tad bit more.

You could always do what i do. Whenever the tank battle is over just target the ko'ed/abandoned tanks until they brew up. As long as your infantry at the time don't need support, roast some marshmallows on the enemy tanks.

[SgtMuhammed]

When thinks take top hits from heavy arty they brew up real nice. In a scenario I am working on the AI bunched up almost a company on a mine field that also happened to be a TRP. Two 152 FOs and 4 120mm FOs top hit several halftracks and tanks. Looked like one of those big bonfires at a pep rally.

[Erwin Rommel]

To add to this discussion..I was watchng a show on the History Channel with interveiws of tank crews during WW2.In one video and interview they were talking about fighting in a town that a Panther had taken position in.They Americans did not know it was there until on of their Shermans were blown away moving toward the center of town.Another Sherman was order to go another direction to get to the Panther.They gunner said that they reached the Panther they fired a round into it.A few seconds later they fired another round into the Panther and the crew began to bail out..However the Sherman fired 2 more rounds into the Panther even as the crew was bailing out in plain sight of the Sherman crew.It was cool to see a Panther taken on by a Sherman in a video actually shot on scene.So I dont think the tanks continuing to fire into enemy AFVs in the game is a big problem as it is obvious after watching that documentary and interview that they actually did that even with the crews bailing out.

[ April 21, 2003, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Erwin Rommel ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

But why are tanks burning so rarely?

Did you have some statistical data to present concerning the occurence of burning kills?

ie why do you insist that something is wrong?

[Jim Boggs]

I had a similar experience, but on a different level. I was firing a 20mm gun at a Russian position and at the 20 second mark the Russians surrendered. My 20mm kept pumping rounds into them for the remainder of the turn even though they had surrendered.

Has anybody else had this happen?

[aka_tom_w]

This aspect of the game works WAY better now than it ever did in CMBO (because there was no death clock there and the gunners acted like robots all the time as they would immediatly KNOW when to move on to the next target even if the last one they hit was not buring, and we all complained about that automaton (sp?) robot like target aqusition behaviour ) AND then Matt and Charles INVENTED the concept of the death clock and now it works GREAT!

The death clock is a JOY to behold and has been pointed out by others here, in this thread it is ALSO my opinion it works flawlessly in CMBB and the (alleged) waste of AP ammo is just "the cost of doing business" in the fog of war in EFOW in CMBB

Cheers

-tom w

[ April 21, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

But why are tanks burning so rarely?

I'd assume that the only way an AFV can brew up is when the engine / fuel tank suffers a catastrophic hit?

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

I had a similar experience, but on a different level. I was firing a 20mm gun at a Russian position and at the 20 second mark the Russians surrendered. My 20mm kept pumping rounds into them for the remainder of the turn even though they had surrendered.

Has anybody else had this happen?

Wasn't this sort of war crime a regular thing on the Eastern Front? Were the firers Waffen SS? Or were the victims just under 'area fire'?

I once had a Sov MG team in a foxhole surrender as an assault came in. A second later my attackers mowed down the now surrendered crew. I'm not sure if there's a vocal in German for 'Too late Chum!' when this happens. Chilling stuff.

[JasonC]

No B-V, brews ups are usually caused by hits setting off the ammo in the targeted tank, not by engine hits. Hits in the lower hull area might cause a fuel fire, though typically a slow one.

As for why one reads about brews ups so much, tankers were afraid of them for obvious reasons. But casualties in armor units compared to dead tanks make it clear that most men got out of killed AFVs (though often wounded). Even the most notorious for burning.

In US Sherman units, average armor battalion casualties, all causes and for the whole war, ran around 50-75 KIA and 150-200 WIA. While turning over their tanks more than once.

Some Brit tank units in Goodwood lost the majority of their vehicles while suffering KIAs in single digits and a few dozen WIA.

It was a lot safer to be in a tank than to be an infantryman, if you look at the loss rates in the different unit types. About 3 times as safe.

[Brigadier]

I think the deathclock issue boils down to the experience of the crews. I would suggest veteran and crack tank crews would , as a virtue of their experience , instinctively know when a tank was killed. Whereas Conscript and Green crews may be more likely to "overkill". Just a thought , but I wonder if this is modeled in the AI?

[YankeeDog]

Just a note to add that it's very difficult to get relaiable data on how often tanks 'brew up' when hit.

As previously mentioned, anecdotal evidence isn't exactly useful because brew-ups are, by definition, spectacular and therefore probably reported on/written about more often.

Furthermore, it was not uncommon for tanks to be set on fire after they were abandoned, either by their own crews so that they could not be captured, or by enemy units to make sure they could not be recovered and put back into action. As such, damage statistics from armored units don't necessarily tell you whether or not the tank was actually 'brewed up' by an incoming AT shot, or whether it was set on fire later (and perhaps by more prosaic means) to prevent recovery.

For my money, the brew-up rate in CMBB 'feels' about right, but I would freely admit that this is just a WAG on my part. I think the onus is on anyone who feels that the brew-up rate is too low (or to high) to offer evidence supporting their assertion as BFC generally researches things quite well.

Cheers,

YD

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Brigadier:

I think the deathclock issue boils down to the experience of the crews. I would suggest veteran and crack tank crews would , as a virtue of their experience , instinctively know when a tank was killed. Whereas Conscript and Green crews may be more likely to "overkill". Just a thought , but I wonder if this is modeled in the AI?

But couldn't this go either way?

I imagine a veteran/crack crew might keep firing into a target until they were _sure_ that it was dead ('Ivan's a dangerous bastard - they might be faking it like last time - keep hitting him!').

But a green crew might think that a single hit would always suffice ('We hit him! Our National Socialist weapons are far superior to any Bolshevik trash - he must be dead! Find me a new target!').

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by Erwin Rommel:

They gunner said that they reached the Panther they fired a round into it. A few seconds later they fired another round into the Panther and the crew began to bail out. However the Sherman fired 2 more rounds into the Panther even as the crew was bailing out in plain sight of the Sherman crew. It was cool to see a Panther taken on by a Sherman in a video actually shot on scene.

When we engaged and hit target tanks on the ranges (usually broken down old Shermans) with our own operational 76 mm M4A2E8 Shermans, you would be hard pressed to know you had a hit. As a gunner, I would see through my reticule sighting telescope, the 76mm round going down range and approach the target. If I obtained a solid hit, their might (or might not be) a slight puff of smoke. If I didn't lose eye focus and managed to keep my eye on the round as it impacted, I would sometimes see a deflection (ricochet), but not always. Our SOP for engaging enemy armor was to keep firing until the CC (Crew Commander) hollered "cease fire", the enemy tank stopped firing itself, or was obviously knocked out. Unless obvious from massive destruction, the knocked out evidence (often told to us by old WWII and Korean Sherman veteran gunners) would be seeing a crew bailing out (they always said to count them) or flame and smoke emanating from the hit vehicle.

We used to walk down range and check our hits sometimes. All that one would see in a Sherman was a hole the size of your fist, if you achieved penetration. There were sure a LOT of large scrape marks revealing shiny base metal where rounds had ricocheted. I could see how a lot of crews would have escaped, except perhaps those that were struck directly by a penetrating round.

I think CMBB's coding of the dead tank syndrome is pretty good. I hadn't heard of the "death clock" thing since I never played CMBO, so I wasn't aware how they managed to create this kind of realism. Now that I understand it, it seems to do a pretty good job of simulating what a real life gunner of that era would be up against trying to judge whether he had a kill or not. Crew (gunner) quality was a factor in real life. It did take lots of experience and the firing of lots of ammo to learn "round following".

I sure as heck never got the real life option of messages like "front turret penetration".

Regards,

Badger

[Hensworth]

Let me say first and foremost that this is pure speculation from someone who's never even been NEAR an AFV, but I think the reason you see relatively few tanks on fire in CMBB is because the only thing that will set them on fire is a catastrophic hit.

This is probably not realistic. In war footage you often see tanks start to burn slowly (electrical fires ?). The crew abandons the vehicle because their compartment is filling up with smoke and the tank is probably immobilized. But it can take a while before the smoke really starts to belch out and any flames become visible.

This would explain why you often read about and see pictures of battlefields full of burning wrecks but no massive losses among tank crews.

Just trying to be helpful .

[xerxes]

Higher quality crews will recognize a dead tank quicker (and switch to something more dangerous). Of course, if the target catches fire and smokes, pretty much any crew figures out that it isn't a threat anymore.

Death clock is a great innovation.

[JonS]

"Brewing Up"

***

From Report No.12, Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th July 1944

No.2ORS investigated 45 KO'd 75mm Shermans, and obtained the following results:

i) Total tank cas analysed: 45

. (a) # pen by German AP shot: 40

. ( Number mined: 4

. © Number damaged, unidentified but 'brewed up': 1

ii) Total Brewed Up: 37

. (a) Number penetrated by shot and 'brewed up': 33

. ( Number mined and 'brewed up': 3

. © Number 'brewed up' by unknown causes: 1

So, 37/45 (82%) of all 75mm Sherman cas investigated 'brewed up', and 33/40 (83%) pen 75mm Shermans 'brewed up'. So, in CM one might expect to see four out of five knocked out (not abandoned) 75mm Shermans burn. However, the report does not (and cannot) specify whether the 'brew up' was immediate (i.e., a catastrophic hit) or delayed (i.e., an initial slow burn that subsequently became catastrophic). That being the case, in CM one would expect the 'brew up' rate for 75mm Shermans to be somewhat lower than 82%.

Incidentally, the ratios from the sample of 45 tanks investigated by No.2 ORS was compared to statistics maintained by REME, 2nd Army, and found to be a good match.

From the Discussion:

1. The proportion of brewed up tanks is high and it is therefore important to know whether or not this must always be the case. A more recent examination of later battles ... has shown that the 1st Bn Coldstream Guards (5 Gds Armd Div) have suffered fewer brew ups than other units, e.g., during operation "BLUECOAT" only 1 in 20 casualties, of which casualties at least 12 were due to penetrations. The unit concerned attributes this to the fact that they carry no extra ammunition outside the armoured bins. It should be recognised that in no recorded case in our sample has the extra outside appliqué armour resisted any hit, and therefore the protection afforded by keeping all the ammunition in the bins is almost certainly due solely to the internal flying fragments failing to penetrate the ammunition.

***

From Report No.17, Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France 6th June and 31st August 1944

Table VIII

Type of Tank ... Brewed Up ... Unburnt ... % Brewed Up

PzKw Mk.VI . . . 4 . . . 1 . . . 80%

PzKw Mk.V . . . 14 . . . 8 . . . 63%

PzKw Mk.IV . . . 4 . . . 1 . . . 80%

(Sherman M-4) . . . (33) . . . (7) . . . (82%)

Table IX

Type of Tank ... # Hits on each Brewed Tank ... # Pens on each Brewed Tank

PzKw Mk.VI . . . 5.25 . . . . . 3.25

PzKw Mk.V . . . 4.0 . . . . . 3.24

PzKw Mk.IV . . . 1.5 . . . . . 1.5

(Sherman M-4) . . . (1.97) . . . (1.89)

From the Discussion:

18. (a) ...

( On the evidence of Table IX it is urged that the causes of brew-ups in tanks are due for detailed research. As shown, the types of tanks studied vary greatly in their susceptibility to catch fire as a result of any single penetration, and this is considered of great importance. This susceptibility depends on both the tank and the projectile and it does not appear that it can be elucidated by further observation on the battlefield but requires detailed research.

***

Regards

JonS

[Panzertruppe]

My 2 cents............... besides being historically correct, many tanks just didn't "brew up"! Although seeing burning armor all over the field may be graphically cool.... people without the latest hardware would see to much of a slow down in their game with all the fire and smoke.