Long range optics

[GRUMLIN]

I have just been handed my butt on a plate in my first CMAK tank joust - I tried to use my german long range optics to stand off and hit his armour, but saw an amazing level of misses whilst he seemed to hand me my arse on a plate with valentines. Is trying to use this RL tactic not worthwhile in CMAK?

G

[Bone_Vulture]

"Real life tactic"?

[flamingknives]

Define 'stand off', quality of crews and weapons used before blaming the optics modelling

[Redwolf]

The effect of the better optics on hit probabilities is only minimal. Check the hit chance display in the editor.

[flammenwerfer]

Grumlin

Have you done more than one test?

Also, has anyone noticed anything besides average optics for the allied afvs?

[GRUMLIN]

The real life tactics I was thinking of was shooting your enemy at a range where your sights work well and his doesnt......call me logical. If you are saying that the effect is minimal, then I'll ignore it in future....

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Better optics sway the odds in your favour, they do not magically give you victory.

[Moon]

Originally posted by GRUMLIN:

The real life tactics I was thinking of was shooting your enemy at a range where your sights work well and his doesnt......call me logical. If you are saying that the effect is minimal, then I'll ignore it in future....

Grumlin, the effect of optics in CM has been kept (deliberately) small overall. This is partly due to us eing conservative and careful not to overmodel something (optics modeling like we're doing in CM has never been done before to my knowledge in a commercial sim), partly because information/research is often sketchy about battlefield optics so that we have to guestimate some data, and last but not least because the effects of optics ARE hard to treat objectivly.

Do a test. Take two binoculars, one a high end model and the other not, give one to a friend and walk away from each other. Stop every few meters and see if you can see him, and ask if he can see you. You will find out that most likely the range in which this is true is minimal and/or non-existant. This is even more true for larger objects, such as tanks for example.

Optics quality makes a real different in extreme situations only - darkness, or juust below maximum visibility range. Optics also influence other issues, like identification, to a higher degree, but to be able to shoot at something you don't need to see each and every detail of it.

Martin

[Tero]

Originally posted by Moon:

partly because information/research is often sketchy about battlefield optics so that we have to guestimate some data, and last but not least because the effects of optics ARE hard to treat objectivly.

Reminds me of the debate over the "partially on" stabilizers on Ami armour.

IRL the Finnish tankers who had a go on both Stugs and Soviet armour said the optics on the Stug counted for more in their mind than the superior armour of the T-34/KV-1 in Finnish service.

The Stugs were retained in service as static emplacements well into the '90s because of their accurate guns whereas the Soviet WWII armour was phased out of service in the early '60s.

Do a test. Take two binoculars, one a high end model and the other not, give one to a friend and walk away from each other. Stop every few meters and see if you can see him, and ask if he can see you. You will find out that most likely the range in which this is true is minimal and/or non-existant. This is even more true for larger objects, such as tanks for example.

That is not really a valid comparison.

The real way to do it would be to distinquish for example facial features. That would simulate the effects of non-athmospheric phenomenon.

Optics quality makes a real different in extreme situations only - darkness, or juust below maximum visibility range.

What if there maximum visual range is not affected by athmospherics but things like vegetation and terrain features ? It seems the consensus is the optics do not count in a knive fight at close quarters. But what is the range (or rather the set of condition) which render the better optics inconsequential ? In the open desert (much like in the Russian steppes) the tradition has it the Germans could outfight their adversaries because of the quality of their optics was superior (along with their tactics and experience).

Optics also influence other issues, like identification, to a higher degree, but to be able to shoot at something you don't need to see each and every detail of it.

One would imagine the first shot hit ability is affected by the quality of optics though. If you have a binocular sight with adjustable maginification with a fine cross hair I'd say you are more likely to make the first shot hit than with a monocular non-adjustable sight with a (relatively) thick cross hair.

[Moon]

Tero:

The Stugs were retained in service as static emplacements well into the '90s because of their accurate guns whereas the Soviet WWII armour was phased out of service in the early '60s.

But good gun accuracy is MUCH more than only good optics.

The real way to do it would be to distinquish for example facial features. That would simulate the effects of non-athmospheric phenomenon.

I am not entirely sure what you mean to be honest, but seeing the facial features is only relevant for identification, not for hitting your face

What if there maximum visual range is not affected by athmospherics but things like vegetation and terrain features ? It seems the consensus is the optics do not count in a knive fight at close quarters.

The shorter the range, the less the effect of optics. They still do count (e.g. field of view and adjustable magnification, which would make *finding* close-by targets easier), but less and less, as e.g. mechanical features of a gun or tank or mount take over. Short-range acquisition is in fact simulated in CM, and I am sure that it is partly responsible for some of the odd "why won't my unit fire" incidents sometimes reported on the board.

But what is the range (or rather the set of condition) which render the better optics inconsequential ? In the open desert (much like in the Russian steppes) the tradition has it the Germans could outfight their adversaries because of the quality of their optics was superior (along with their tactics and experience).

From what I recall (it's been a while, so don't quote me please ), the optics system in CM really only makes a difference around the last 10% of the given max. LOS distance for a battle, provided it's more than 1000m or so. Actually it's probably even more "fuzzy" than that, Charles hates hard "breaks" like that.

One would imagine the first shot hit ability is affected by the quality of optics though. If you have a binocular sight with adjustable maginification with a fine cross hair I'd say you are more likely to make the first shot hit than with a monocular non-adjustable sight with a (relatively) thick cross hair.

Adjustable magnification isn't automatically better than non-adjustable. It simply depends on the range(s) involved.

Binoculars are always better, as they usually provide more depth and increase field of view. Plus they make observation over longer periods of time easier. Cross hairs are immensly important for extreme ranges, but in reality few guns had reticles "thicker than the magnification", meaning that they were unsuitable for the ranges that the sight was made to fire at. Actually reticle size (and manufacturing processes etc.) are mainly important for optics with adjustable magnification from my experience. Since they need to work well for both short and long ranges, good technlogy is important here.

But to comment on what you said specifcially, first-hit probability certainly depends on optics. As does 2nd or 3rd hit. But think about it - to what extent does 1st hit prob. depend on the quality/experience of the crew? 50/50? 40/60?

I have been working in the optics industry before Battlefront. I am not a scientist, but probably spent more time outdoors actually looking through a myriad of optical systems (incl. WW2 stuff) than others. From my experience, optics make a difference at extreme ranges or under extreme lighting/atmospheric conditions only. For 95% of situations, other elements are at least just as much or way more important.

This is the stance (you can call it conservative if you like ) we followed with CM.

Martin

[Michael Emrys]

I think something needs to be kept in mind, and that is that the German reputation was built on more than good gunsights. Aside from the mechanical properties of the gun and the ballistic properties of the rounds they fired, German crew training was also much better through most of the war, especially the early war. Even a very slight edge in all of these areas adds up to a significant edge on the battlefield.

However, at any time an advantage in any of these areas can be canceled by a marked disadvantage in others. As one side or another made progress in one area or another, the overall battlefield advantage could swing back and forth and back again.

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by Moon:

But good gun accuracy is MUCH more than only good optics.

Agreed.

I am not entirely sure what you mean to be honest, but seeing the facial features is only relevant for identification, not for hitting your face

If I am a 60kg lightweigt and you take me for a 150kg heavy weight and you aim at the supposed center of my supposed mass while I make a positive ID and aim accordingly which one of us would you assume makes the first shot hit more reliably ? And what if I am trained to shoot at your face while you have been trained to hit the center of the mass ?

The shorter the range, the less the effect of optics. They still do count (e.g. field of view and adjustable magnification, which would make *finding* close-by targets easier), but less and less, as e.g. mechanical features of a gun or tank or mount take over.

How were the mechanical features of the respective mounts taken into account when the game was being designed ? The stabilizer was partially modelled, but not when it came to its weaknesses (malfunctions for example would lock the gun at a certain elevation at all times).

Short-range acquisition is in fact simulated in CM, and I am sure that it is partly responsible for some of the odd "why won't my unit fire" incidents sometimes reported on the board.

I think "why won't my units hit" are more common.

From what I recall (it's been a while, so don't quote me please ), the optics system in CM really only makes a difference around the last 10% of the given max. LOS distance for a battle, provided it's more than 1000m or so. Actually it's probably even more "fuzzy" than that, Charles hates hard "breaks" like that.

That is interesting. This would explain the relative impotency of the AT guns in the game, given the average engagement ranges in the game.

Adjustable magnification isn't automatically better than non-adjustable. It simply depends on the range(s) involved.

True. Though I would not say it depends simply on the range. The engagement ranges during the summer of 1944 in the Karelian Isthmus were between 10 and 1000 meters and still the Finnish tankers said they Stug optics (including visibility out of the buttoned up vehicle mind you) gave then the edge over the opposition.

But to comment on what you said specifcially, first-hit probability certainly depends on optics. As does 2nd or 3rd hit. But think about it - to what extent does 1st hit prob. depend on the quality/experience of the crew? 50/50? 40/60?

I've seen in the game a veteran or better Axis crew miss their first shot more often than their similarly experienced Allied crews to be able to pass judgement on that.

Mind you, with the Long Range Optics the 88 seems to have gotten a bit closer to what it was supposed to have been IRL than it was in the original game.

From my experience, optics make a difference at extreme ranges or under extreme lighting/atmospheric conditions only. For 95% of situations, other elements are at least just as much or way more important.

That does not really happen in the game though. A concealed asset (AT gun or what not) is more often than not dead meat when it fires the first shot, regarless of the fact it has the (supposed) edge.

This is the stance (you can call it conservative if you like ) we followed with CM.

Conservative is not perhaps my first choice for the term but I'll let it ride.

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Moon:

Short-range acquisition is in fact simulated in CM, and I am sure that it is partly responsible for some of the odd "why won't my unit fire" incidents sometimes reported on the board.

I think "why won't my units hit" are more common.

I agree....

I still believe there's some serious code anomalies in the gunnery/damage coding once engagements get down under 25-50 meters. I noticed it first in CMBB and it seems to be carried forward in CMAK.

Just my opinion, but I still enjoy it as a piece of entertainment software and don't view any of these games as real weapons simulations.

Regards,

Badger

Sherman (M4A2E8) & Centurion

Group 3 Gunner (RCAC)

Group 2 Driver Mechanic Tracked (RCAC)

Group 2 Signaler (RCAC)

CC and Troop Leader Instructor

[ January 02, 2004, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

[Soddball]

My gut feeling on this is that long-range optics aren't modelled well. I don't de

My feelings on this were first formed when playing that CM:BB scenario where you are fighting with Nashorns behind a ridge against IS-2s about 2km away. 2km is a relatively long range but the Nashorns were dead meat in that battle - partly, perhaps, through borg spotting, with 3 or 4 IS-2s targetting the Nashorn, but their precision in combat really was diabolical.

My feelings have also been confirmed trying to use 88mm Flak against Matildas in the desert. Try as I might, I can't get any kind of reliable precision from those guns.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

"Real life tactic"?

Yes it was a standard real life tactic for the CMAK to stand off and open fire from 1,500 yards and up. They were reluctant, from the British perspective to get mixed up in a knife fight.

Also they would tend to attack late in the day with the advantage of having the sun behind them.

Having recently read the 4th Indian Div's post operational report for Op BATTLEAXE (Jun-Nov 41) in the PRO (WO 201/357) the Brits thought that they were damaging Axis Armour in these long range exchanges. But then go on to note that the Germans are left in possession of the field and are thus able to recover damaged vehicles.

Mind you there is also criticism of the Brit 'I' tanks habitually opening fire at 1,500 - 2,000 yards 'thus denying good targets to the 2 pr and 25 pr guns'. The 2 pr is stated to have 'again showed its excellence'.

No comment on optics as a significant factor though. But it does imply that the long range duels did not all go the German's way but that through their better management of the battlefield they were able to exploit it to their advantage.

[PeterX]

My feelings have also been confirmed trying to use 88mm Flak against Matildas in the desert. Try as I might, I can't get any kind of reliable precision from those guns.

I think one issue we're running into here is that BFC has drastically lowered the Hit Percentages in Hot weather; at least in the desert to account for the 'shimmer' effect. IIRC, from tinkering around in the editor, Hot weather now reduces hit probabilities by 10% or so. This makes a meaningful difference when dropping from 15 to 5 per cent. Also, Strong Wind plays an inhibiting role.

You may want to check this out.

[Moon]

Originally posted by PeterX:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> My feelings have also been confirmed trying to use 88mm Flak against Matildas in the desert. Try as I might, I can't get any kind of reliable precision from those guns.

I think one issue we're running into here is that BFC has drastically lowered the Hit Percentages in Hot weather; at least in the desert to account for the 'shimmer' effect. IIRC, from tinkering around in the editor, Hot weather now reduces hit probabilities by 10% or so. This makes a meaningful difference when dropping from 15 to 5 per cent. Also, Strong Wind plays an inhibiting role.

You may want to check this out. </font>

[JasonC]

It is a sound tactic and it will work just fine in CM. But British I tanks are tough. To tackle them at range, you have to stay outside the range where their 2 pdrs become dangerous to your own panzers. You are both shooting for track hits and gun damage at that point.

If you fight in the 500m to 1000m range window, that is not "standing off" at "long range". Your 50L42s will bounce from Vals in that window, while he can get partial pens here and there, sometimes full ones (turret hits on Hs e.g.). That is the best range window for the Brits in this match-up. Long means that 2 pdr has to bounce - 1500-2000m.

If you aren't going to get that far because of map size or terrain limitations, your best bet is to close the range - against I tanks only - and to go for flanks shots as well. If you have only 50L42 and 75L24 guns, that is.

In 1942 Marders can shoot I tanks at longer range - but are so thin they are vulnerable to the replies themselves. Towed guns are also useful against them, as they have no HE and MGs aren't effective at long range.

[Dinsdale]

If you fight in the 500m to 1000m range window, that is not "standing off" at "long range".

Agreed.

Also agree with Moon. Quality of Optics only benefits in the extremes. Low light, longest ranges etc.

At normal Combat ranges 500-1000m , the benefit is marginal to nil.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Soddball:

2km is a relatively long range but the Nashorns were dead meat in that battle - partly, perhaps, through borg spotting, with 3 or 4 IS-2s targetting the Nashorn, but their precision in combat really was diabolical.

I wonder if the vehicle platoon to-hit chances are cumulative. And if it is realistic if they are. After all, the vehicles are separate entities even when they are a part of a platoon.

[ January 02, 2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[['nzn]]

I have an opinion, it is mine and humble of course, that the our engine misidentifies the two notions sometimes: 'hit' and 'kill'.. I get such feeling t times

[ January 02, 2004, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: ['nzn] ]

[JasonC]

I just tried a test doing this right to see if it works as a tactic, under favorable conditions. I had 8 Pz III Js, short, with 50mm fronts and the 50L42 gun, against 3 Valentine IIs. That is the kind of odds that should allow defeat of the Valentines through "hail fire" at range. I had a map 400m wide and 2000m long. I first closed to around 1500m, then opened fire. The actual firing ranges were 1300m to the nearest (advancing) two, and 1700m to the farthest (stationary).

I fired all my panzers at the rear Valentine first, since it wasn't moving. The initial hit chance was only 7% of so, but that rose to 30% after acquisition. Sometimes it could fall again to the 12% range due to dust between, kicked up by the short misses. In a minute of fire I got an immobilizing track hit.

I switched to the right, near Valentine, again with all 8. The hit chance fell to 12% but I again rapidly acquired. So far they hadn't laid a glove on me. This Val went down, track hit and a bunch more that may have scared the crew or may have done gun damage (though no read-out of that), abandoned, in a single minute (it popped smoke and disappeared, actually, and I saw it was abandoned when the smoke cleared.

I took a few ricochets at this point. The Vals have trouble keeping the Panzers targeted. They are 2 man turrets, so they have to button to fire. It is easy for them to lose the target in dust. When they do they can't rapidly reacquire. They won't unbutton when shells are bouncing off of them. Still it mattered that I had J models, since they did get a turret hit or two. Hs might have had a loss, or might not.

In the third minute the last Val was immobilized. Realistically, at this point I would have opened the range, making dust and losing them, then circled to continue with flank shooting at just one of them. But the narrow map prevented this. I tried just firing away, waiting for gun damage.

But this is not very effective, because once you have hit the track there is much less chance of damage by a non-penetrating hit. (GD plus track is about 1 out of 7 hits. But GD alone is more like 1 out of 20). If the hit chance stayed at 30%, with 8 shooters it might still be worth trying. You'd need something approaching 100 shots to finish a tank off. But dust means many of the shots are only 10% of so, and makes the ammo expenditure impractical. The initial immobilizations are fine, finishing off is not.

In reality the next step would be to circle and come at one tank from a flank, closing the range to get penetrations. With the narrow map I could only charge. I tried that, with a targeted lead tank reversing into my dust to throw off their shooting, and holding my own fire while moving, as inefficient in ammo terms. (The panzers have around 15 AP left each. They had plenty of HE but continued to fire AP, so it wasn't worth running out).

At 400m the 2 pdrs were dangerous again. I had some side angle but starting getting flaking, then a partial pen, then a crewman lost in one tank. But on fast move with dust obscuring many and only 2 shooters (in 2 man turrets), only 1 tank was hurt on the run-in. The rest got close, stopped, and began shooting from widely separated angles at the nearest crippled. They overkilled in a minute of fire, with numerous penetrations (side turret, side hull, partials, etc). I lost the panzer that had taken the crew hit to one more front turret pen, at 280m.

In the following minute everyone shifted fire to the other Val, and closed some more. They rapidly killed it without further loss. Overall, all Vals KOed and 1 Panzer lost - and that only because I had to close frontally on both, due to an artificially narrow map. It worked fine, in other words, when you have the odds for it and enough range, and fronts that can bounce a 2 pdr from far enough away.

With thin turreted Hs and only even odds, naturally it might be tougher, and the tactic might not make sense under those unfavorable conditions. For what it is worth.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Moon:

Temperatures affect hit probabilities immensly in CM, not only since we introduced heat-haze in CMAK, but even in CMBB in, e.g. extremely cold weather.

The artillery services rate their gunpowder for different ambient temperatures. What about the gunpowder on the AFV's ?

[GRUMLIN]

Thanks for all this guys. So are we saying then that the tankkiller AFVs such as the Marder is not much use in AK as the raneg benefits only kick in at 1500m+ plus, but most maps dont have this sort of terrain setup?

Grum

[Mark Gallear]

Optics is not the same as a computerized battlefield computer, linked to a laser range finder. Ranging it is a primitive process using a calibrated gun sight, for the type of ammunition your tank fires. They are far from brilliant you can expect your first shot to be out by possibly hundreds of metres. The tank gunner adjusts the shot in from seeing puffs of dust from where the round falls. If he cannot see this then it makes long-range fire impossible. The optics helps here but the tank commander could do this task by sticking his head out with a pair of binoculars. You can expect to use up a lot of ammo before you even start to hit the target. Good optics will also help the tank find targets when he is buttoned down.

The big fear of British tankers of long range engagements was not because the Germans had super sights but better penetration compared to the 2pdr.

The 88mm was deeply feared but I am not sure in reality how often they were used to kill British tanks or how effective they were at long ranges of 3000 metres, which are often quoted. The Germans eventually fitted the 88mm with an optical sight to engage ground targets. The equivalent British AA gun had its sites to engage air targets in a separate unit. Although they were used at least once against German armour with "home made" sights. The British powers at be believed they should be used in the AA role anyway.

The 25pdr was regularly used to engage German tanks in the early period, because of the lack of a decent AT gun and in the Infantry organization. The gunners did not relish this task. I came across an account of 25pdrs been used to stop a German tank attack in Normandy!

A regular German tactic was to withdraw the German armour after an engagement with British armour that had not gone their way through a curtain of hidden German AT guns. I think it is the British Cavalry charge tactics blundering into this, which resulted in the vast majority of British tank losses and helped bring about the fear of long fire.