TheBlackHand Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Fire only after stopping? Doesn't seem to happen in CM. Maybe this is an old topic but I couldn't find anything in the search on it. I've victimized and been a victim of the amazingly accurate German shot-on-the-move. I've always been under the impression that, historically, German tanks didn't have gyroscopic sights and therefore, couldn't hit the broadside of a barn while the tank was moving. I always thought that German tanks had to stop to shoot. Even with a vintage gyroscopic sight I'm thinking that shots while moving would be much less accurate than shots while stopped. Am I wrong? I just got zapped from about 250-300yds. by a PZIV that was moving full tilt. To make it even more incredible, my Valentine tank was placed between buildings & the Panzer only had a few seconds to make the shot. One in a million? (Playing PBEM "Caged Beasts" from the Scenario Depot.) Also, I've always wondered why "Gun Damaged" means "All Guns Damaged". I can understand how a tanks main gun could be put out of action, but why does that always mean that the MG's go with it? I'd still like to use my tank as an armored MG platform. Why can't I do this? Am I missing something? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackHand Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 Check that, the search function did turn up some answers on the Gun Damage question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 On the flip side... Big Time Software unregistered posted November 01, 2000 01:29 AM Oh boy... if I had a dime for everybody that thought German tanks should hit targets like they are shooting lasers, I would be a millionare Heck, this is the second thread started up in the last day or two. Simply put -> your expectations for hitting are far, far too high. If you really are concerned about CM's modeling of accuracy, I would suggest you look at the following thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011342.html Note that for 12 pages there has been very little put forward to show that CM's modeling is inaccurate, but by page 13 plenty of evidence to show that it is indeed "pretty close" at the very least. Is it perfect? No, I am sure it is not. But I can tell you that the way it is now is FAR more realistic than what the average gamer would come up with if he was allowed to call the shots. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-31-2000).]Crew experience is an important factor [ August 23, 2006, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Wicky ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackHand Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 Man, that's some thread! Thanks for that. I just read the first page. I'll wade through the rest this afternoon. In the meantime, is there any specific info on shooting while moving? Specifically, in regard to the German tanks? According to ALL EXPERTS, in regard to the Tiger, "Fine rotation of the turret, and elevation of the gun, was by hand; the tank could not aim while moving." Looking through my own library I found this from "Weapons of Patton's Armies", a report on US Army Observations of the Panther tank: "Because of no periscope sight for the gunner and lack of the gyrostabilizer on the Mark V, firing with any accuracy during movement would be impossible." I havent found any similar info on the PzIV, but I assume it's the same. Some more images from Tigerfibel: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 TheBlackHand, None of the Tiger models or conversions thereto had a gyroscopic stabilizing system for fire on the move. SOFAIK, the Russians on many of the T-26s produced employed what Milsom (RUSSIAN TANKS 1917-1970, p. 85) called "complicated photo-electrics" to allow fire on the move. I don't have any information on how well the system worked in combat. The U.S. (to include the Allies it supplied such systems) was the only country I know of to field gyroscopic stabilizers en masse and use them in combat. I have FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery from 10 July 1944 which describes the procedures and capabilities for using the system on the M3 Grant/Lee and the M4 Sherman. The U.S. system worked fairly well on level, even surfaces, but was often disconnected because it was maintenance intensive. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I think even when the gyrosight was used, the experienced crews would halt to fire. Pre-aiming using the gyro on the move was simply a way of bringing the gun on-target faster at the halt, and thus allowing the tank to get rolling again sooner after the shot. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerBlitzer Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Where are these illustrations coming from? Why do they have Japanese (Chinese) script? Strange... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 DerBlitzer, Don't know, but the artist is talented. Some of the Japanese are every bit a tank mad as we are. Think Tamiya and Koku Fan. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Also, I've always wondered why "Gun Damaged" means "All Guns Damaged". I can understand how a tanks main gun could be put out of action, but why does that always mean that the MG's go with it? I'd still like to use my tank as an armored MG platform. Why can't I do this?Doesnt always, ive been able to use my tanks many times after they have had there main gun has been knocked out as an armoured MG platform. Very nice pics too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Axis technology transfer document left over from the aborted attempt to supply Japan with Tigers for use in the jungle. Originally posted by DerBlitzer: Where are these illustrations coming from? Why do they have Japanese (Chinese) script? Strange... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Er, then why are they also in English? Likely they are more recent than that and produced specifically for the web. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackHand Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 I scanned those images from a Japanese/English book that I have. "Tiger an der Front Bildband und Tiger Fibel im Bild" by Tomioka Yoshikatsu & Kobayashi Motofumi. The text indicates that they're from the German training manual for Tiger tanks. "Tigerfibel". Here's a link to the original Tigerfibel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 The text maybe. The drawings are pure Manga. Not bad if you are into Grogporn. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackHand Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 Yeah, the drawings definately don't match up to the original. Speaking of porn, I'm diggin the nudie frauleins in the original document. Maybe if they'd have included that sort of thing in my Marine Corps field manuals I'd have paid more attention. (For any former Jarhead's, what was the big green book called? The one with all the regs in it. We called it something. Now I can't remember. I can't believe I've forgotten, since it was such a huge fact of life back then. Now it's going to drive me crazy till I recall.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 If you were nailed by a German tank going full speed you must've had some bad karma on your side, dude! I thought hit probabilities plummeted to something like 10% when you're on the move. Of course a 10% hit probaility still means you could get nailed by a lucky shot [ August 24, 2006, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 It is the range. At point blank range you can hit a fair portion of the time even on the move. At medium range or a moving target too, you won't. Also, you don't need a 80% chance to hit because tanks fire 6 times a minute. 15-20% is an effective hit percentage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.