Adjust tankfire bug

[Jaws]

Basically the procedure is simple. Someone of the tank crew spots a target and the Tank commander decides if the gunner should engage it. Then he gives a direction, an estimated range and ammo sort. This sound something like this (depending from which country you are)

Commander: HE, 1 o'clock, 800 meters, vehicle engage

Gunner: 1 o'clock, 800 meters, vehicle,..Contact

Loader: HE Loaded

Commander: Fire

Gunner: I will fire (wait 1 second so tank crew can prepare for shot)

Than the adjustment procedure starts:

Someone from the Tank crew calls; over, right, left, short or a combination of this.

The tank commander gives order to adjust.

i.e. if the shot went over he calls aim at underside target (every country has a procedure for this)

Finally (if he gets the chance ) there is a moment he hit the target. After that if he repeats fire until the target is destroyed.

After he is adjusted, the round will always hit the target because he knows exactly where to aim with the correction (i.e. left underside of target) (only very bad gunners make a mistakes here)

In CMAK it goes like this;

1st shot over

2nd shot short

3th shot hit.

4th shot miss :eek:

5th shot miss

6th shot hit

7th shot hit

8th shot miss :mad:

This is in real life it is impossible without a clear cause to miss the target after shot 3.

In my opinion this error should be corrected.

[ April 25, 2004, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Jaws ]

[Gurra]

Interesting. I have a feeling you might just be right on this one.

[stikkypixie]

Maybe the wind changed direction. I don't think it's realistic to think that shells will follow the exact same path everytime.

[Jaws]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

Maybe the wind changed direction. I don't think it's realistic to think that shells will follow the exact same path everytime.

Only at large distances and with heavy wind the flight path of the project will be influence. For WW2 tanks let's say above 600 meters. And yes projectiles will not always follow the exact same path but have a tolerance of about 1 meter in that time.

[ April 25, 2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Jaws ]

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Jaws:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stikkypixie:

Maybe the wind changed direction. I don't think it's realistic to think that shells will follow the exact same path everytime.

Only at large distances and with heavy wind the flight path of the project will be influence. For WW2 tanks let's say above 600 meters. And yes projectiles will not always follow the exact same path but have a tolerance of about 1 meter in that time. </font>

[Redwolf]

Well, missing or hitting aside, but does anybody else feell that this feature never should have made it into CM:

When a tank buttons up the new visibility rules kick into effect, its spotting range drops. If it has seen a target 1701 meters away when open and the buttoned up limit is 1700 meters, then it will lose that target when buttoning up.

And that is even if it already shot at that target.

That is a pretty honky misfeatures, as obviously the gunner's sight were already at the target and don't change one bit when buttoning up.

[Jaws]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jaws:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stikkypixie:

Maybe the wind changed direction. I don't think it's realistic to think that shells will follow the exact same path everytime.

Only at large distances and with heavy wind the flight path of the project will be influence. For WW2 tanks let's say above 600 meters. And yes projectiles will not always follow the exact same path but have a tolerance of about 1 meter in that time. </font>

[Jaws]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Well, missing or hitting aside, but does anybody else feell that this feature never should have made it into CM:

When a tank buttons up the new visibility rules kick into effect, its spotting range drops. If it has seen a target 1701 meters away when open and the buttoned up limit is 1700 meters, then it will lose that target when buttoning up.

And that is even if it already shot at that target.

That is a pretty honky misfeatures, as obviously the gunner's sight were already at the target and don't change one bit when buttoning up.

Agree

[Bone_Vulture]

Just to be sure: are we talking of stationary targets here? If so, then the initial argument is correct.

But firing on a moving target... I'd find it probable that the rounds could miss even after the target has been "zeroed".

[Jaws]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Just to be sure: are we talking of stationary targets here? If so, then the initial argument is correct.

But firing on a moving target... I'd find it probable that the rounds could miss even after the target has been "zeroed".

yes we are talking about stationary targets.

[GreenAsJade]

I don't see why it's a misfeature that you can't see as well into the distance when you are buttoned up. You close all those hatches, and suddenly you're squinting through a restricted vision hole that may not even have LOS to the thing you could see when popped up: there's a honking piece of metal view-hole-frame in the way.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

I don't see why it's a misfeature that you can't see as well into the distance when you are buttoned up. You close all those hatches, and suddenly you're squinting through a restricted vision hole that may not even have LOS to the thing you could see when popped up: there's a honking piece of metal view-hole-frame in the way.

Did you read that part about the tank main gun already shot at the target, which implies gunner's sights, which are unaffected by buttoning up or not?

And besides, I very much doubt a TC buttoning up loses sight to an already indentified target to the front. Once you spotted it you can re-find it in the cupola, always, at least if the tank is standing and it is not raining.

[c3k]

Jaws,

What you're missing is the ACTUAL conversation inside the tank during a CM engagement. It goes more like this:

Tank commander: Gunner, 2 o'clock, 500 meters, tank

Gunner: Aye

Tank commander: No, wait! 9 o'clock, 2,000 meters, jeep.

Gunner: Aye

Tank commander: Belay that! 4 o'clock, 10 meters, infantry

Gunner: Sigh

<CLANG! BOOM!>

Tank commander: (cough, cough) Aaaarrgghhh! We've been hit! Get out!

I know this is what my pixellated warriors are saying, based on how my red target line swaps around.

Ken

[dieseltaylor]

Jaws

Interesting point. My first reaction is that your experience is very extensive - but with tanks that had had the benefit of battle results from the WWII. Certainly some war tanks were acknowledged pigs with relaying required after firing - in particular one of the US tank destroyers.

I also feel that quality control in shell manufacture may have been a little more relaxed - no information to hand on that.

Lastly we need to consider if the recoil absorbing abilities of all tanks is equivalent. Secondly that the ground, slope they are on is not in anyway affected by repeated firing from the same position. All reasons in my mind to accept misses after hits.

Perhaps if you say which tank you were using in your testing and target etc we can get a better feel of whether your suggestion has further ramifications. : )

[dieseltaylor]

Redwolf.

Presumably the buttoning comes up as the result of coming under fire in which case it would be understandable if the TC was sufficiently distracted to momentarily, or longer, lose sight of the target.

If the target is being fired at then presumably the TC is spotting to correct the aim so will not be able to offer corrections whilst unsighted.

For the reasons above when replying to JAWS I think the possibility of guns missing even with previous hits must be reasonable at 1700 metres.

Exactly at what ranges these spotting rules have to occur will always be arbitrary 1700, 1800, 2500m and I assume - though may be wrong that the quality of crew and the weather are also factored in.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by c3k:

Tank commander: Belay that!

Well, duh, there's your problem--you've got sailors manning your tanks!

[MikeyD]

One thing you may be forgetting is at least for the desert war you're not exactly talking modern-day fire controls. Some Brit/U.S. tank guns were shoulder-fired(!) and had to be reaimed after each firing (a problem with post-war Russian tanks as well, I believe). Others like the 75mm gun Staghound III would rattle the optics loose after just 3-4 rounds fired. Others like the initial production Greyhounds had the firing optics too close to the gun making repeated firing rather uncomfortable for the poor gunner (a problem similar to that of the initial production IS-2!).

[Jaws]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Jaws

Interesting point. My first reaction is that your experience is very extensive - but with tanks that had had the benefit of battle results from the WWII. Certainly some war tanks were acknowledged pigs with relaying required after firing - in particular one of the US tank destroyers.

I also feel that quality control in shell manufacture may have been a little more relaxed - no information to hand on that.

Lastly we need to consider if the recoil absorbing abilities of all tanks is equivalent. Secondly that the ground, slope they are on is not in anyway affected by repeated firing from the same position. All reasons in my mind to accept misses after hits.

Perhaps if you say which tank you were using in your testing and target etc we can get a better feel of whether your suggestion has further ramifications. : )

First I did no testing but I noticed this behaviour often.

Then I did testing wit PZ III M, PZ IV G and up, Panther and Panzer IV/70 (Jagdpanzer). With the PZ III M you can see this the best because this tanks is not able to kill i.e. a Sherman with its 50mm L60 in one shot (mostly).

It is possible that this was already in CMBB but I didn’t notice this before. :confused:

[Jaws]

Originally posted by c3k:

Jaws,

What you're missing is the ACTUAL conversation inside the tank during a CM engagement. It goes more like this:

Tank commander: Gunner, 2 o'clock, 500 meters, tank

Gunner: Aye

Tank commander: No, wait! 9 o'clock, 2,000 meters, jeep.

Gunner: Aye

Tank commander: Belay that! 4 o'clock, 10 meters, infantry

Gunner: Sigh

<CLANG! BOOM!>

Tank commander: (cough, cough) Aaaarrgghhh! We've been hit! Get out!

I know this is what my pixellated warriors are saying, based on how my red target line swaps around.

Ken

This sound very familiar with new tank crews

[Jaws]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

One thing you may be forgetting is at least for the desert war you're not exactly talking modern-day fire controls. Some Brit/U.S. tank guns were shoulder-fired(!) and had to be reaimed after each firing (a problem with post-war Russian tanks as well, I believe). Others like the 75mm gun Staghound III would rattle the optics loose after just 3-4 rounds fired. Others like the initial production Greyhounds had the firing optics too close to the gun making repeated firing rather uncomfortable for the poor gunner (a problem similar to that of the initial production IS-2!).

Yes I agree the problems with different types of tanks but I must say that urge to survive makes soldiers very creative in solving this kind of problems. But you make a good point here.

[Stoffel]

Actually I had a debate with jaws about this a few weeks ago,this happened when my Tiger fired at an allready immobilized target standing on a small hill.

Range to the target was about 500 meters(!)

I ran the turn 3 times with the same odd results every turn.

My opinion is that(BFC)they used the same model for tank guns as they used for mortars,after all you see the same pattern with them.

[GreenAsJade]

If that were true, it would be outrageous!

If we can actually _know_ that a stationery tank firing at another one is going to go "over, short, hit, miss, miss, hit" every time... well... sheesh!!!

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Stoffel:

My opinion is that(BFC)they used the same model for tank guns as they used for mortars,after all you see the same pattern with them.

No, you confuse

1) the base hit probability

and

2) what happens if it missed.

You have to understand how the engine works: there is a hit probability against an armored target and it is executed as a pure probability with a random number. There is no flight path computation.

If the engine decided it is a miss then it does an entriely new computation to figure out where the shot lands, which is case 2).

Case 2 is certainly screwed up, the fall pattern of missed shots is far too wide given the base hit probability.

But it doesn't matter as case 2) is entirely seperate from case 1), so you don't miss out on armor hits.

[Jaws]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stoffel:

My opinion is that(BFC)they used the same model for tank guns as they used for mortars,after all you see the same pattern with them.

No, you confuse

1) the base hit probability

and

2) what happens if it missed.

You have to understand how the engine works: there is a hit probability against an armored target and it is executed as a pure probability with a random number. There is no flight path computation.

If the engine decided it is a miss then it does an entriely new computation to figure out where the shot lands, which is case 2).

Case 2 is certainly screwed up, the fall pattern of missed shots is far too wide given the base hit probability.

But it doesn't matter as case 2) is entirely seperate from case 1), so you don't miss out on armor hits. </font>