Gun rate of fire

[JoMac]

I have noticed in all 3 Combat Mission games the rate of fire is high and seems to stay at the same rate. Example: a stationary or moving Stuart would have the same rate of fire roughly 1 round every 5 seconds at a stationary PZIV, and still 5 seconds per round if the PZIV is moving, or if the range is short or long. You would think the gun would take an extra few seconds per round to adjust the fire etc. Atleast in the game rate of fire is affected when switching targets, crew conditions, size of gun, etc.

[ July 21, 2004, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ]

[Joachim]

Adjusting the gun in a moving WW2-tank is so hopeless that you have a better chance for a hit if you fire more often instead of aiming carefully.

Gruß

Joachim

[JoMac]

Not only is the rate of fire alittle to high but the chance to hit with the smaller guns (20mm,20mm auto,37mm,40mm,50mm)seem high too. Example: I have been play testing alot of CMAK desert- The PzIII and A13 cruiser seem to have over 50 percent chance to hit with its first round from 400 to 500 meters. Then with consecutive rounds 2 out of 3 will hit.

[ July 21, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ]

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by JoMc67:

Not only is the rate of fire alittle to high but the chance to hit with the smaller guns (20mm,20mm auto,37mm,40mm,50mm)seem high too. Example: I have been play testing alot of CMAK desert- The PzIII and A13 cruiser seem to have over 50 percent chance to hit with its first round from 400 to 500 meters. Then with consecutive rounds 2 out of 3 will hit.

It's called target bracketing, the more your tanks fire at a target the more accurate it gets, i believe it's somewhere in manual, it's pretty cool, especially when you get those hull penetrations .

[YankeeDog]

I think you may be right that ROF, especially on moving targets, is a bit high in CM.

However, it is worth noting that ROF is abstracted and averaged to a considerable degree in CM. While the ROF may be a bit high for a tank attempting to fire and adjust on a moving target, the ROF is a bit low for the same tank on a zeroed-in, stationary target. IRL, an experienced tank crew, once it gets the gun zeroed in on a stationary target, can fire off 2-3 rounds very quickly -- basically as fast as the loader can go and the gunner can pull the trigger. I've seen footage of Sherman crews pulling off a ROF that looks to be about 1 shot/4 seconds for short, 2-3 shot bursts. Of course, they can't do this very long -- for one thing, they'll run out of shells in the ready rack very quickly.

But you get the idea. ROFs in CM are kind of one-rate-fits-all-situations, which inevitably leads to some inaccuracies around the edges. For the most part, I think this works fine, but eventually it would be nice to see a bit more complexity to the ROF model.

As far as whether the accuracy % are realisitic or not, never having aimed and fired a tank gun, I can't really say for sure. I think it's worth noting, though, that I as a casual civilian marksman wouldn't have much trouble hitting a tank-sized target with a decent high-power rifle at 500 meters. In fact, with a rifle I was familiar with and a good shooting position, I could probably even hit the tank two out of three times with only iron sights. So it seems plausible to me that a tank gunner, with a much more stable platform, optical sights, and a heavier, high velocity shell (=less variation due to wind and the like) could do the same.

Cheers,

YD

[Little_Black_Devil]

Well, I agree that ROF is abstracted - and that generally speaking I think its fairly accurate in what it seeks to represent (not necessarily imitate with 100% accuracy)

However, I would also add - that aiming a rifle, and aiming a gun (a field gun or a gun mounted in a tank) at a moving target - are two completely different things.

You may be able to carry over your ability to correctly "lead" a target from firing a rifle to firing a gun - but the process of moving the barrel into position so it shoots where you want it to, is made considerably harder by the means with which guns and tank operated gun traversed and elevated their guns.

Even assuming you had a gun with free elevation - the traverse is your achillies heel (to some degree).

Having fired a few guns at simulated mobile tank targets in my time - and concurrently having been able to consistently hit mobile targets with my rifle, I for one - never found hitting moving targets a skill easy to transpose from my rifle to my gun. My ability to judge "lead" wasn't so much a question, as my ability to swing the gun to where I wanted/needed it.

Of course - I'm willing to accept that I was never the best shot either.

[jrrich0000]

Until the late 70s, Tank Gunnery in the US Army taught gunners to shoot from a 'short halt' for best accuracy. Maybe this doctrine is modeled in transparently?

[YankeeDog]

Devil -

Your points in re hitting moving targets with a gun vs. a rifle certainly make sense to me; the mechanics are quite different. I assumed, however, that in re the accuracy issue, JoMc was referring to a stationary target, not a moving one. 60-70% hit chance sounds high to me against a moving target at 500m based on my CM experience (though perhaps I'm wrong here - I Haven't checked this stat in-game).

Even against moving targets, it is worth noting that most WWII tanks were substantially slower than modern designs, especially when moving off road. Hitting a T-72 moving at 35kph cross-country is probably considerably harder than hitting a PzIII in the same conditions, which was lucky to make 20kph moving cross-country.

As you note, though, at these short ranges against a fast moving target, it's more about being able to get your crosshairs over the target than it is actually calculating the precise lead and elevation. At 500m, whether you're talking about a tank gun round or a rifle bullet the shot is going to be in the air for less than a second -- against a tank moving laterally at about 20kph and somewhere between 400-500m away, you can just guessimate the lead as being somewhere around 3 meters (depending on the exact MV of the gun, of course) -- this is easy enough to just eyeball.

Actually, in my experience even with a rifle targets moving laterally across your field of view can be very difficult to keep sighted through the scope; it's not so much a matter of knowing where the crosshairs *should* be to hit the target as it is being able to get the crosshairs in the correct position in relation to the target for long enough to pull the trigger.

Basically, from what you say it sounds to me like the accuracy challenges are actually pretty similar in that they would manifest themselves more in ROF than accuracy per se -- the gunner/rifleman doesn't fire because he's trying to 'get a bead' on the target, rather than loose off a shot he knows is going to miss because he can't get the crosshairs over the target.

Cheers,

YD

[JoMac]

All your posts seem to have some good points. I just remembered back in my table-top wargaming days playing HO and Micro-armour rules. Where each turn represented a minute of action which was broken down in 2 - 30 second move and fire phases. Hidden tanks and AT guns fire first, then stationay AT guns fire second, then stationary tanks fire third. then moving tanks fire last.

One rules set back in the 70s called TRACTICS as well as some newer rules rate of fire was dependant on unit type. Example: Rate of fire for A stationary M5 Stuart or PZIII would be 3 while only 2 if moving. A PZIVH or M4 Sherman would be 2 or 1. While a Tiger would only be 1 round. AT guns rate of fire is usually 1 higher then that of armour. If you KO a target and switch to a new one in middle of turn your rate of fire is reduced by 1.

When it comes to tabletop or board game rules the movement and fire is somewhat abstracted for playability. I guess When i first started playing the CM series i was alittle surprised. The game is great and tries to be as realistic as possible, but there are still some things im undecided on.