Getting German Tanker results

[coe]

Ok this should ignore the lorraine campaign...well as you know there were various german tank aces, in WWII and I do know that they did get tanks shot out from under them from time to time. And some of these did this in plain vanilla Pz IVH or StuG IIIs when out numbered...I find this rather hard to do in CMBB or CMAK as usually even when in prepared positions, they get beaten or when running to outflank they get tracked by multiple enemy tanks (who miraculously see them)...is there some stuff in CMBB or CMAK going on that is distorting thing (btw, this is despite the StuG IIIs being overmodeled.

Conan

[JasonC]

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ParetoDistribution.html

http://cnx.org/content/m13389/latest/

Pick the best 10, 20, or 50 out of 50,000 on curves that fall off like that...

[coe]

Naturally the rock stars are few but particularly in Russia there seemed to be a fair amount of success. Perhaps is some of it the borg spotting that goes on?

E.g. German plain vanilla Panzer IVs stopping russian charges at Kursk...especially at the July 13 th battle, or Von Mellenthin claiming an attack where the russians thought 25 panzers were part of their own, or Wittman surviving on the russian front.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by coe:

Ok this should ignore the lorraine campaign...well as you know there were various german tank aces, in WWII and I do know that they did get tanks shot out from under them from time to time. And some of these did this in plain vanilla Pz IVH or StuG IIIs when out numbered...I find this rather hard to do in CMBB or CMAK as usually even when in prepared positions, they get beaten or when running to outflank they get tracked by multiple enemy tanks (who miraculously see them)...is there some stuff in CMBB or CMAK going on that is distorting thing (btw, this is despite the StuG IIIs being overmodeled.

There are a number of things going on:

StuG front is not overmodeled, but the Soviet medium-velocity 76.2mm guns are undermodeled.

There is too much return fire due to absolute spotting.

The hit probabilities of standing shooter against moving target and vice versa are distorted due to a number of reasons, all of them making the standing shooter weaker and some making the moving shooter stronger.

[jwatts]

I think borg spotting is entirely the reason for this, but what do I know? If you pop out with a high-experience crew, brew up a couple of Russian tanks (or American, or British, or Canadian, etc), there's a good chance one of their buddies will get you before you get back in cover. Even if you do manage to make it back to cover, the opponent knows the approximate position of your tank, and often times the maps won't allow for a good alternate firing location. This complaint, of course, is kind of in line with one I will make for myself. I personally am lacking in armor tactics in CM, but am practicing and getting a little better. My only real complaint is that often crack or elite tank crews take 3-4 shots before they get a hit! One miss, sure I can see that, but I think crew experience should count for more than that. If I have a crack Tiger, popping out of cover for shots on some Shermans, I expect him to nail one of them within 3 shots. Is this undermodelled in the game, or am I just being a whiny little boy who needs to reform his armor tactics a little more?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by jwatts:

If I have a crack Tiger, popping out of cover for shots on some Shermans, I expect him to nail one of them within 3 shots. Is this undermodelled in the game, or am I just being a whiny little boy who needs to reform his armor tactics a little more?

Just for starters, the area of ground that is considered "adjusted" for range from previous shots is extremely small. A fast moving T-34 in open ground or Sherman on road can get faster through this area than the ROF of the attacker is. So there is no improvement at all from several shots.

I think the area is 50m radius, I once measured.

And obviously, no memory of ranges previously found.

[jwatts]

Oh, I understand clearly the difficulty of hitting a moving tank, especially ones as fast as T-34s or Shermans. The impetus for the complaint comes from several instances where Shermans have been pummeling my front line infantry, I bring a vertran/crack Tiger around to flame a couple, and in a matter of maybe 30-45 seconds they back away and out of sight, without actually getting any hits. Should I just be happy my landsers are getting a respite from the HE rain, or angry that not one of the Amerikaners perished?

[JasonC]

You are just being a whinny little boy.

[coe]

actually I did think of one thing you fire at a tank, you miss but it then disappears in the smoke a little, so instead of the tank waiting till the dust/smoke disappears it targets another tank...but when the first enemy tank reappears (the smoke/dust is gone), does the our tank require it as if it was a brand new tank or does it have a bit of memory as to the range so its first shot after reacquiring the target has a higher to hit chance?

Conan

[z-warfare]

Originally posted by JasonC:

You are just being a whinny little boy.

Cranky!

[JasonC]

No, accurate. He suggested the explanation himself and it is simply correct.

Russian players would willingly give away a third of their force to have access to an AFV with the outperformance characteristics the Pz IV has against T-34s (i.e. accurate gun that kills anything, enemy shots bounce from front hull, rapid turret, low command delay). German players claim that they are useless because they have a single front plate, hit only about 30% of the time hull up, that can be penetrated by full power Russian AT weapons. Why? Because they are spoiled whiners, pretty much.

A typical Russian problem is that if they buy a specialized AT killing vehicle like the SU-85, its shots will bounce on a majority of full hits from plain vanilla, 100-150 point enemy items. A typical German problem is that maybe half of the AFVs they would take if being historical, can be penetrated through a single front plate by full power enemy AT weapons.

You want to get fine performance out of Pz IVs, just drive them how any US or Russian commander would. They will do gobs more than a similar number of T-34s. That means you want many of fews or distraction stalking or both, of course. It means you rely in assymmetric AFV killers before mindlessly mashing like on like if you can help it, to get an edge.

But if you can't win with Pz IVs and StuGs against T-34s with all the overmodeling in CM, then you flat can't drive tanks worth a darn. They are superior to their opponents in every relevant respect. If you lose to them, then there is a skill differential against you, and I am not talking about crew quality ratings.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by jwatts:

Oh, I understand clearly the difficulty of hitting a moving tank, especially ones as fast as T-34s or Shermans.

You didn't get my point.

A fast moving tank is much harder to hit in CM than in real life.

A real tank moving at a straight line with constant speed is subject to almost as high a hit probability as a standing tank.

Not so in CM. Because if he moved 50 meters (might be 100, don't remember) ALL the rrange finding done with all the previous shots is lost and you fire as if you just arrived on the battlefield and had aquired a new target. For every single shot if the target moved a little. In real life it is not.

And don't get me started on not being able to return to ranges found previously in CM. There is none. If you know that lateral road is 350-400m away it stays that way in the brain of a real life gunner. Not so in CM.

The hit probabilities of moving tanks shooting are also clearly off.

[ January 22, 2007, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by coe:

actually I did think of one thing you fire at a tank, you miss but it then disappears in the smoke a little, so instead of the tank waiting till the dust/smoke disappears it targets another tank...but when the first enemy tank reappears (the smoke/dust is gone), does the our tank require it as if it was a brand new tank or does it have a bit of memory as to the range so its first shot after reacquiring the target has a higher to hit chance?

Conan

Every such switch makes your tank start finding the range from scratch as if it just arrived at the battlefield with no knowledge of enemies, roads or landmarks.

The same target tank constantly targetted is also subject to a full reset if it manages to move 50 meters between the shots (might be 100, don't remember).

A single meter move of your own tank resets this, too, and in CM as the Russians that often happens involuntarily. It also prevents using scoot and shoot in any realistic manner.

The final insult is that somehow CM decided that buttoning up when already shooting at a target makes the visility range less and you often lose the target when buttoning up. The absurdity of this is breathtaking since the gunner is always inside the tank and not in the least affected by buttoning up. If he already fired at the target he can obviously continue to do so. Anyway, yes such an event also resets the target. After you reopen the tank you will be able to shoot at the old target again, but all rangefinding is lost (for the whole battlefield). It is like you just arrived with no knowledge of enemies, positions and landmarks.

It is no surprise that "German-style" armor ambushes in CM don't quite work as expected, in particular for the high-velocity guns.

[ January 22, 2007, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[coe]

a few things I found out though

if you get a PzIVH within 500 meters of a greyhound things can get very dangerous for the PzIV even from a frontal aspect....

Also I haven't had much luck with IVH or Js at distance against M-10s (Veteran IVH and J) against regulars)...we're talking 900-1000 meters...

Something is happening because the 76mm L/55s seem to hit with uncanny accuracy whereas my IVHs and Js L48 have trouble hitting (this has happened several times) - I wonder is it the tactic to stay till you hit something then move like hell away?

[coe]

actually one thing I noticed...if you have a tank that matches up with another tank...it will stay and duke it out...and that it will stay even if against 10 tanks are against it as long as if each individual tank would be equal to it (thus the odds make it a bad situation to stay around in).

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by coe:

a few things I found out though

if you get a PzIVH within 500 meters of a greyhound things can get very dangerous for the PzIV even from a frontal aspect....

Pz IV in CMx1 = 50mm turret, which is OK, except that the real life Pz IV has an unusually small turrent front, which is not modeled in CM. In CM all tanks with turrents have the same faction of the overall silhuette applied to them. If you look at a real Pz IV you see that:

</font>

• turret is small to start from, and flat which makes it even worse for the shooter since it emphasizes rangefinding errors</font>
• there's angled areas left and right bottom</font>
• there's a 30mm gun mantlet over much of the remaining 50mm front</font>

Still, in CM the change to hit the 50mm turret front is the same as for a Sherman or a King Tiger. Post pictures to see how off that is.

Also I haven't had much luck with IVH or Js at distance against M-10s (Veteran IVH and J) against regulars)...we're talking 900-1000 meters...

Something is happening because the 76mm L/55s seem to hit with uncanny accuracy whereas my IVHs and Js L48 have trouble hitting (this has happened several times) - I wonder is it the tactic to stay till you hit something then move like hell away?

Never heard about that. Did you do an isolated test on it?

[jwatts]

Hm. Actually Jason, I beleive I am being a WHINY little boy, as it appears whinny is the noise a horse makes when it gets an apple or some other such delicacy. Or perhaps you were censoring a naughty word with an innocous one such as whinny? Either way, I might be whining, I might misunderstand the historical truths (though you do ever so much to correct that), or I might be a genius. I'll go with the middle answer, but ya'll are free to make your own assumtions. I was merely bitching and moaning, (and I beleive it is said that those are the combat soldiers two essential freedoms, whether the combat is cyber or not), about the small noticeable effects of crew experience. My amount of readings on the subject is surely not as volumnious as yours, Jason, but it does appear that the "crack" crews (the Carius', the Wittmans, etc) seem to hit an enemy at combat rangers within 2 shots on most occasions. Please, oh wise one, enlighten me as to why this belief of mine is so dramatically wrong that I deserved ridicule.

PS this is written somewhat tounge-in-cheek, you decide to get offended, not my problem bud. Oh and I wasn't offended (jibes about my lack of WWII knowledge just don't have that effect on me), in case anyone is wondering. I just like to challenge authority, and in these forums Jason is it.

[Corvidae]

I dont whine,

I just accept the fact that I cant use tanks worth a damm.

[jwatts]

Exactly my thoughts. I defer to the judgement of my elders and betters.

[Redwolf]

If you read otto Carius ("Tiger in the mud"), you see a large discrepancy between the number of tanks killed by his crew and the number of time he says "had to get back because out of ammo".

However, a crack gunner should hit with the third shot most of the times, at least when the first two land short.

In CM that is sometimes the case, such as when the target is standing and the shooter doesn't move, but the "memory" of rangefinding is extremely fragile and is getting erased at about 100 times of a realistic rate.

[ January 22, 2007, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[JasonC]

How many rounds of tank killing AP ammo do you think Germany fielded and fired in WW II, to KO approximately 110,000 allied tanks?

[JasonC]

I don't know either, but I do know the order of magnitude and a floor. It is well over 20 million rounds of heavy AP. Somehow I doubt everybody hit with 3 shots like on a firing range.

[coe]

20 million? wow...I hesitate to say this but KO 110000 allied tanks - does that include knockout and return to duty then get knocked out again - does that count as a single KO....but then there are shots that bounced...and some shots that penetrated but in the wrong place and I might be wrong but wasn't it sometimes policy to shoot till it burns...and then there's the ammunition that was left in the tank and never fired (e.g. lets say Panther gets KOd with 20 rounds of AP) or stuff in the ammunition dumps.

But I started this thread more thinking about the crack tankers...I should have been more specific.

Those people are the results I can't quite seem to get.

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by jwatts:

I just like to challenge authority, and in these forums Jason is it.

Hah. Don't be fooled.

[pamak1970]

according to

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KsPO4ia-B-oJ:www.ada.asn.au/defender/Sum02all.pdf+%22rounds+per+kill%22tank+wwii&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

there are about 17 rounds per kill in wwii tank battles.

I have seen the same number in other military oficial publications also.

For Sherman tank fans there are some more interesting details in the following link

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/swain3/swain3_pt2.pdf