What's wrong here?

[gerald]

I played a mission where I have three Nashorn's on a hill meeting the advancing Russian tanks.

I bring my Nashorn's to a hull down postion. They are Elite and veteran units. I am facing T34's and KV1's at 1800+ meters.

My Elite unit is hull down, firing and missing EVERY shot. ALl my Nashhorns miss EVERY shot.

And so it goes, the Russians knock out every one of my Nashorns after about 3 rounds.

Something ain't right here. How can my elite units with the 88/71 gun miss every shot? The Russian tanks are out in the open with no cover or hull down postions. I don't even geta richochet or nothing. Complete misses.

[Meach]

I have noticed this with elite tanks as well..they usually miss with there first two shots all the time and get picked off by regular tanks. It is as if they are trying to bracket the enemy rather than kill them. Really annoying sometimes, what version are you on cos I noticed it a helluva lot on 1.02 CDV and sometimes on 1.03 CDV.

[Black Max]

I sympathize with you. It hurts when you do things right and still end up with smoking husks of metal.

Here is one explanation of what happened.

OK Fritz,

I have radioed the other Nashorns to move into position. You are to fire at will. Radio the other commanders the range vectors as soon as you get a hit.

Ready!... FIRE!

Missed 50 meters to the right, adjust and compensate for wind. Radioed coordinates.

Breach loaded... Ready!... FIRE!

25 meters to the left, adjust and compensate! Radioed coordinates...again.

We are now taking incoming fire. "Gulp".

Breach loaded... Ready!... FIRE!

25 meters to the right. What the hell! Fritz? Do you have your glasses on?

Where are they...where are they? How the $$& should I know?

And so the story continues...

[MikeyD]

Nashorns with their long range optics should do better than they do. Remember, that 88 long is the KT gun and should be the queen of the battlefield. And I can't tell you how many first round kills I've seen from T-34-85s. That 85mm gun doing better that the 88? It's as though BFC was overcompensating for the crappy gunnery in all the other T34 types!

[ June 18, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Gpig]

SPOILER ALERT!

.

.

\.

.

.

.

.

.

Heh, yeah. My CRACK kingTiger in "Maxdorf" kept missing those t-34/85's that came on the map at the 1500m range.

Got one of them, but after I'd used up almost 20 rnds of AP. Then I just put up a covered arc at the 1000m mark and waited.

Those t-34's wouldn't even come out to play! They'd peek out of the woods, then scurry back into cover.

My Tiger never had to fire another shot! Just his presence alone saved the day. Held back 8 (?) of them t-34/85s.

Gpig

[Steiner14]

Gerald,

indeed very strange.

Can you replicate the results or make some tests?

[Zimorodok]

I haven't done tests or anything, but I have noticed that, no matter what the 'quality', the AI driven tanks always seem to be pretty darn good shots, even with 'standard' optics and 'poor ammunition'. I see a lot of one-shot one-kill from the AI side (even with BA-6's...). It makes it very hard to have HT's or SP Guns on any battlefield (which teaches me to be a better player).

I had a (vet) Sherman brew up a (vet) StugIIIG (frontally) at 800 meters on one shot today. I'm not saying it's impossible, but lots of real life reports list the burning vehicle on the Allied side. My Stug, of course, bracketed the Sherman before dying.

just my .02

Zimorodok

[flamingknives]

The thing about real life reports is that you can't quite compare the crew quality in the same way as CM. From what I've read on the subject, the usual confrontation would pit Vet Germans against green or reg allies.

Besides, real life commanders didn't have Borg spotting, a bird's eye view and the ability to make everything bigger.

The mismatch wasn't always caused by the germans outshooting the enemy but instead outmanuevering him.

[TheCrow]

Too many post talk about undermodelled soviets.

I think there are two obvious uppermodelled features in Soviet tanks.

They has a very good visibility buttoned and high accuracy at great ranges, similar, sometimes seems even superior than German tanks. These proSoviet features reduce historical advantage of german tanks versus soviets.

They become extremly detrimental to germans, at summer 41 tank battles, and long range combat with tank destroyers like Gerald said.

[Redwolf]

Lessons in statistics at 1800m:

Hit probability of Crack Nashorn against T-34 M43: 22%

Hit probability of Elite Nashorn against T-34 M43: 28%

Hit probability of regular T-34 M43 against Nashorn: 9%

Hit probability of green T-34 M43 against Nashorn: 9%

Hit probability of regular T-34 M43 against hulldown Nashorn: 7%

Hit probability of green T-34 M43 against Nashorn: 5%

So let us consider the 5% of the green T-34 against the hulldown

Nashorn and the 22% of the Crack Nashorn.

Obviously, both will likely not hit at first shot.

Overall cumulated chance to hit at shot [n], zeroing in (I assume both

stand):

1: 22% / 5%

2: 53% / 14%

3: 77% / 26%

So by the time the Nashorn reaches 3/4rd hit chance the green T-34 is

at 1/4 itself.

But now consider 20 T-34 are dueling with 4 Nashorns. That is 5 T-34

against each Nashorn. So the cumulated hit chances are (third row is

5x T-34)

1: 22% / 5% / 23%

2: 53% / 14% / 53%

3: 77% / 26% / 78%

So you see the chances are exactly equal for

- one hulldown crack Nashorn to hit one of the 5 T-34,

- of 5 green T-34 to hit the hulldown Nashorn

But remember, at the end of the probability chain is one dead T-34 and

one dead Nashorn. But that leaves the other 4 T-34 and zero

Nashoerner.

We don't have 1x Nashorn and 5x T-34, we have 4x Nashorn and 20x T-34.

The moment one Nashorn does down the chances for the remaining

Nashorns shirnk much faster than the T-34s chances sink when one or

several of them go down.

[ June 18, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Forgot to mention that I didn't take rate of fire into calculation.

Normally the big high-precision guns have lower ROF than the smaller guns with lower hit probablity. When trading shots that obviously raises the chances that the small gunner wins.

In this case we have an open-top vehicle with high-quality crew against a bad crew in a two-man turret, so we can't automatically assume the T-34 has the ROF advantage.

[Redwolf]

On the subject of optics: In CMBB the effect is mostly for spotting.

The raise in hit probablity is noticable but not overwhelming.

Consider the 75mm L/43 - L48 and hitprobablities at 1800 meter against

the T-34 M43:

- towed L/46 and long-range: 12%

- Mk IV F2 L/43 and good optics: 9%

- Marder II L/46 narrow optics: 9%

Consider another pair: the Marder II early carries a Russian 76.2mm

with 710 m/sec initial projectile speed in a package with narrow

optics. The gun is also available as a towed gun and has long-range

optics. The T-34 M43 carries a similar gun with no special optics and 680 m/sec.

Hit probablities:

- no optics: 8%

- narrow optics: 9%

- long-range optics: 12%

As you see the effect of optics on hit probablties in CMBB is pretty

minimal. You can stop speculating now.

EDIT: can somebody please enter this into the FAQ? I am so tired of people raving about the magic German überoptics which ensure hits at all range. SO tired. They are not in CMBB and the handbook is quite clear about it.

[ June 18, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by TheCrow:

Too many post talk about undermodelled soviets.

I think there are two obvious uppermodelled features in Soviet tanks.

They has a very good visibility buttoned and high accuracy at great ranges, similar, sometimes seems even superior than German tanks. These proSoviet features reduce historical advantage of german tanks versus soviets.

They become extremly detrimental to germans, at summer 41 tank battles, and long range combat with tank destroyers like Gerald said.

You obviously have not met my Russian tank crews... in a recent QB against my father over TCP/IP I had a platoon of T-34/85s all in hull down positions which opened fire at 800m on two of his Panthers as they crossed an open field... By the end of the second turn of firing, I had three of my tanks knocked out, one with gun damage, and one retreating after a partial penetration. :eek: I had only scored a single hit on one of his Panthers, which did no damage... :confused: my crews were regular and one vet in case you were wondering...

[Michael Emrys]

BTW, in the situation you describe, you might try using Shoot & Scoot. It won't make your Nashorns any more accurate in their shooting, but it will keep them alive longer because the Red tanks won't have so much time to zero them in. Making the Reds button up will also make them slower acquiring you. Mortars, especially off-map with plenty of ammo, are good for this. Clever placement of TRPs can help too, if you have any.

Michael

[Soddball]

I know this scenario. After 15 turns I quit in disgust. I was using "Shoot and Scoot" and still lost 2 Nashorns with a third 'gun damaged' when the range was upwards of 1,500m.

The problem seems to be twofold. Firstly, multiple enemy targets (half a dozen T-34s all opening up on the Nashorn makes for a better knockout chance than just one, obviously). Secondly, the accuracy of the '88' may still be undermodelled. It's just a gut feeling without any statistical backup. I've noticed this with the 88 pillbox - frustratingly inaccurate.

[flamingknives]

redwolf:

Going by your figures on optics, long-range optics give a 50% increase in the to-hit chance, which is hardly insignificant.

That said, I suspect that the increase in to-hit chance is not a multiple of the base chance, but better optics tend to give an increase of about 5% to-hit, which is comparable to a level of experience or under command of an HQ with a combat bonus.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Going by your figures on optics, long-range optics give a 50% increase in the to-hit chance, which is hardly insignificant.

Actually no, I partly goofed by comparing to the T-34 gun to come up with the 8% hit chance.

If you just compare the 76.2mm M1936 F-22 Gun and the captured 76.2mm one you come up with pratically the same hit chances, although the captured one has long-range optics and the Russian one has no special optics.

The good optics do not make for a more than 30% increase, and that only at very long range.

That said, I suspect that the increase in to-hit chance is not a multiple of the base chance, but better optics tend to give an increase of about 5% to-hit, which is comparable to a level of experience or under command of an HQ with a combat bonus.

I would agree to that, better optics = one or two experience levels.

But that is much less than people assume on this forum. People here usually assume the high-end German TDs have something like 90% hit chance at 2500m where the Russians have 5%. Only the latter is true.

Speaking of it, did anybody investigate HQ combat bonusses on AT shots in CMBB? Should be interesting and probably different for vehicles with combat-bonus HQs and infantry.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

BTW, in the situation you describe, you might try using Shoot & Scoot. It won't make your Nashorns any more accurate in their shooting, but it will keep them alive longer because the Red tanks won't have so much time to zero them in. Making the Reds button up will also make them slower acquiring you. Mortars, especially off-map with plenty of ammo, are good for this. Clever placement of TRPs can help too, if you have any.

Michael

Good thoughts.

But TRPs and shoot-and-scoot don't mix. You disable the TRP by any move you make (even if you move back to the same spot later).

The question of whether you should allow zeroing in or not is two-fold, because you lose your own zeroing in, too. I usually seek zeoring in when my AFV has the higher ROF but avoid it if I have the slow shooter, but of course it depends on a lot of factors, especially the number of enemy AFVs in sight.

The real root of the evil here is absolute spotting and lack of camouflage for defending vehicles. From my reading Germand TDs against buttoned non-copula, non-radio Russian tanks could face many of them in LOS with no problem. Because only a minority of them would spot the ambushers and hence you don't have that overwhelimg return fire. Best, you can see which enemy tanks has spotted you (because they turn their turrets against you), so you can pick off those who do first.

In CM you almost immediately face return fire from everybody in LOS, at the very least after the next turn barrier. The results is overwhelming statistical disadvantages even from superiour positions, see my previous posts.

[MikeyD]

In Maxdorf ...(spoiler alert?)... I tried coupling Nashorn shoot-&-scoot with laying smoke in an effort to reduce the number of T-34s targeting me at any one time. Still, thin armored Nashorns, a 5-to-1 odds (or so), and a complete lack of first round kills makes for a very tough scenario.

[ June 19, 2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Ligur]

I have found defending with armor especially a horrible chore, nigh impossible if the attacker has a nice x 1.3 to x 2 advantage in points not to mention the total advantage in numbers.

This far I have practically missed any advantage at all for waiting on an enemy in hull down unless 1) Enemy is buttoned/shocked/messed up/green or worse 2) Enemy comes alone with nobody around to help during the first 60 seconds.

One on one, if I have a better tank & luck, I win. If the enemy has a better tank & luck, he wins. Me waiting hull down somewhere does not have much to do with it

Same with guns, either you kill the opposition (preferably a single unit) immediately or you are so dead.

This all encourages me to use armor to counter-attack on defense, moving actively and trying to get flank or rear shots is at least trying to avoid death.

[MikeyD]

Your post makes me wonder, has anyone tried playing Hornet's Nest (not Marksdorf - oops!) where they DON'T try for the (supposed) long range Nashorn advantage, and just wait to pick the enemy off one-by-one as he rounds that final ridge?

[ June 19, 2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Jack Carr]

Welcome to the Eastern front. I have not played this scenario but it sounds like an interesting puzzle. It certainly sounds like the odds are historically accurate. Not having seen the map, it sounds like the key to this engagement is ensuring that the Nashorns engage the T-34's only when they are equal in number or have numerical superiority.

Those of you that have played the scenario, Is this possible using terrain features or smoke?

Anyone agree/disagree? I think when I get home from work, I will fire this scenario up.

Is this scenario historical? If so what was the outcome?

Can't wait to take a crack at it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Your post makes me wonder, has anyone tried playing Marksdorf where they DON'T try for the (supposed) long range Nashorn advantage, and just wait to pick the enemy off one-by-one as he rounds that final ridge?

I didn't wait that long, but I did do much better when I waited for the Sovs to get closer in before I opened fire. That may seem counter-intuitive, but that's how it worked in the game. I forget what the optimum range was that I settled on, but it was about two-thirds of maximum.

The advantage of waiting is that you score lots more hits and you aren't exposing yourself to as much return fire. Dropping a mortar barrage on them a turn before you reveal your Nashorns is a really good move too, as is someone's suggestion of using smoke to mask most of the Red force. The mortars have the secondary advantage of forcing any hitch-hiking infantry to debus and hoof it as well, which means that they mostly don't make it to the party before the game ends.

I think you should expect to lose one or two Nashorns no matter what you do. The trick is to keep enough of them alive long enough to shoot off most of their ammo. About that time, the reinforcements should be arriving. What really hurts is to lose one on the first turn!

Michael

[von Nev]

I am no expert on the hit percentage tables, but my experience in a recent battle from the Stalingrad pack seems to me to have a slight discrepany. I had three Panzer IVG's in hull down positions engaging about 10 T-34 (41's and 42's) with 2 KV-1S thrown in at ranges from 1,300 - 1,500 meters. I was using the shoot-and-scoot function (up to the hull down positions and back) and was hitting the Ruskies with pre-planned 105's and 150's to button them up.

To my surprise I lost all three IVG's with the loss of one T-34 in well under a minute. BTW, the issue was not penetration, it was just hitting the T-34's. The T-34's were hitting between 1-in-3 to 1-in-5. I wasn't trying to slug it out, I was just trying to take out a couple and retire to move to another position. I figured that with T-34 41's and 42's I had at least a fighting chance at that range. I didn't expect to have them be so accurate out to 1,500 meters especially against a hull down position. The Panzer IVG's were (1) "crack" and (2) "veteran." Ruskies were veteran to green.

I played it several times and got the same result.

v. Nev

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i'm quite a newbie and reading this thread gave rise to a couple of questions

1. does the hit % get higher the longer i wait before i shoot the target? how would i do the waiting in practice? set an arc and still target an unit outside the arc?

2. will my tanks be any harder to detect if they just sit quietly without firing? does hide command help?

about the original subject. i myself have noticed that using good tanks doesn't usually pay up, unless the battle takes place on a very boring flat map. or at least it's extremely frustrating. if there is any cover, it's very easy to get to such ranges that it doesn't matter what kind of gun your tanks have.

i think that the high ROF 20mm guns are perhaps the most useful ones in the game, simply because they actually hit the target. they won't make enemy tanks blow up, but they will disable them.