Haohmaru Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Hi there, I just downloaded the demo and tried out Furhlingswind. Overall, I'm very impressed with the new sounds, allied units, and the overall look and feel of the desert. I have noticed a few things though... Firstly is about optics. From the demo it seems that once again only the German units have optics modelled, because at least from looking at all the units on the allied side, none of them have mention of anything different from standard optics. The CMBB manual states that Russian optics were not implemented due to lack of information, that is fair enough. Now I know absolutely nothing about the subject, but surely there would be plenty of information available about American, British etc optics. So, my question is, are they modelled, and if not, why not? It seems unfair to give these bonuses to only the German side. Secondly, I found in this scenario that the M3 exhibited a few strange behaviours. When my M3s were shooting at some armored cars, at least one of them was using it's ap rounds in the 75mm gun, even though it was a very weak target and it only had about 20 ap for that gun compared with 60 ap with the 37mm gun. Unless there was some special reason such as the smaller gun had little to no chance of hitting, I think the tacai needs some tweaking on how it decides which gun to fire. Also, I have noticed that the lower 75mm gun can fire while the tank is hull down, I would have thought given the design of the tank this would be impossible. Is this due to game engine limitations or what? Hope to hear some answers. Haoh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 IIRC, units without optics listed are assumed to have 'standard' optics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haohmaru Posted November 22, 2003 Author Share Posted November 22, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: IIRC, units without optics listed are assumed to have 'standard' optics. Yes, I am aware of that, as I said in my post all of the allied units have nothing listed which means standard optics. But my point is, do the entire allied forces have only standard optics while the Germans have a range of different fancy types? It doesn't sound right to me. Or is it just the units represented in this particular battle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Originally posted by Haohmaru: Also, I have noticed that the lower 75mm gun can fire while the tank is hull down, I would have thought given the design of the tank this would be impossible. Is this due to game engine limitations or what? Hope to hear some answers. Haoh I just lined up a Grant and StuG III and compared the height of both vehicle's 75mm gun. The StuG's barrel is lower, and that vehicle has no problem firing from a hull down position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haohmaru Posted November 22, 2003 Author Share Posted November 22, 2003 Originally posted by Kingfish: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Haohmaru: Also, I have noticed that the lower 75mm gun can fire while the tank is hull down, I would have thought given the design of the tank this would be impossible. Is this due to game engine limitations or what? Hope to hear some answers. Haoh I just lined up a Grant and StuG III and compared the height of both vehicle's 75mm gun. The StuG's barrel is lower, and that vehicle has no problem firing from a hull down position. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Originally posted by Haohmaru: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: IIRC, units without optics listed are assumed to have 'standard' optics. Yes, I am aware of that, as I said in my post all of the allied units have nothing listed which means standard optics. But my point is, do the entire allied forces have only standard optics while the Germans have a range of different fancy types? It doesn't sound right to me. Or is it just the units represented in this particular battle? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 But the StuG doesn't have half the tank positioned above the level of the gun does it? Correct Hull down is nothing to do with height of the tank, but rather how much of it is exposed. Correct again In the case of the M3, surely "hull down" means that only the top part, ie the 37mm gun is exposed, while anything lower than that point should be obscurred. IMO, Hull down in CM means hiding as much of the vehicle as possible behind a small rise or other terrain feature, while (Here's the important part) still being able to fire it's main gun . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haohmaru Posted November 22, 2003 Author Share Posted November 22, 2003 Originally posted by Kingfish: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But the StuG doesn't have half the tank positioned above the level of the gun does it? Correct Hull down is nothing to do with height of the tank, but rather how much of it is exposed. Correct again In the case of the M3, surely "hull down" means that only the top part, ie the 37mm gun is exposed, while anything lower than that point should be obscurred. IMO, Hull down in CM means hiding as much of the vehicle as possible behind a small rise or other terrain feature, while (Here's the important part) still being able to fire it's main gun . </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarker Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Another question on the optics. In CMBB the German optics degraded with every step up in game temperature. Has another level of optics degradation / temperature been added because of additional heat in the desert? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 "The M3s Grants produced for the British in 1941/42 had a completely different cast turret configuration than the same vehicles built for the Americans. This different turret design eliminated the original tall commander's machine gun cupola while enlarging the overall diameter of the turret to include a rear overhanging bustle for radio equipment. Except for internal and external stowage, the remainder of the vehicle was just about identical with the first American mediums, named M3 "General Lee" by the British, while their own version was named M3 "General Grant". One of the curious attributes of the M3 design was the placement of its M2/M3 75mm gun in a sponson on the right front of the hull. The decision to include this gun at all is said to have been a reaction to Germany's use of a similar weapon in their Panzer IV medium tank, but the placement of the gun in the M3 turned out to be one of the stranger attributes in an odd design. Because the gun was originally included to provide indirect fire support, its location in the sponson was seen as adequate. But when the British attempted to use their new powerful 75mm gun in direct fire against hard targets like German panzers, they found it was impossible to get a hull down position to hide the majority of the tank's bulk. That meant that the M3's 75mm weapon could not be used to its full potential, the crew instead was required to fully expose the vehicle in order to bring the big gun to bear on any direct targets. Otherwise, the crew had to rely on the small 37mm gun up in the turret for any practical hull down shooting. On the other hand, it was comforting to know you could fire in two directions at once, and in the confused fighting that Grant crews often found themselves in before Alamein this trait was often appreciated. " http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/grant/grant1.html [ November 22, 2003, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Captain Wacky ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 In CM, 'hull-down' means that the lower hull is covered, but the glacis and turret remain visible. As the M3 Mediums 75mm is in the glacis... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterX Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 That's a fair enough idea. So by that theory then when the M3 is hull down, pretty much everything except for the lower hull should still be exposed, and there shouldn't be much change to hit % chance. Sounds reasonable. But I don't know if the engine can adjust Hull Down vulnerability% on a vehicle by vehicle basis. So far, in the Fruhlingwind sceanrio I've yet to see the 37mm gun fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by Captain Wacky: On the other hand, it was comforting to know you could fire in two directions at once, and in the confused fighting that Grant crews often found themselves in before Alamein this trait was often appreciated. " http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/grant/grant1.html On the other other hand, _our_ poor tankies don't have that consolation do they? Maybe that's why they are allowed to fire the 75 from hull down even though they can't fire the MG!! (which, at least according to the BMPs we have, is _above_ the line of the 75). The comparison to the StuG is a bit moot... "Hull down" for a Stuey is probably with just the lower hull hiding, and even in that position it would be pretty well hidden with its silhouette. More importantly, that baby doesn't have any MG does it? So you don't get this wierd "hull down, MG blocked", which you _do_ get for the M3. I'm thinkin' "MG blocked, geez, what about the 75". Maybe the gunner of the 75 is skilled enough to do the ballistics and point it up over the obstruction and still get a hit GaJ [ November 22, 2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally jokingly posted by GreenAsJade: Maybe the gunner of the 75 is skilled enough to do the ballistics and point it up over the obstruction and still get a hit GaJ Hey - I read the page CW pointed us at, and I found out that my jest (above) is not so funny: In that web page it says: One of the curious attributes of the M3 design was the placement of its M2/M3 75mm gun in a sponson on the right front of the hull. The decision to include this gun at all is said to have been a reaction to Germany's use of a similar weapon in their Panzer IV medium tank, but the placement of the gun in the M3 turned out to be one of the stranger attributes in an odd design. Because the gun was originally included to provide indirect fire support , its location in the sponson was seen as adequate Further on it says: Although as an anti-tank gun the 75mm M2 low velocity weapon ... so I guess they _do_ just lob the 75 rounds over the obstruction!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 As others have pointed out, "hull down" is not really an accurate term, sicne SPG's such as stugs can be "hull down" and shoot with their gun mounted in the hull! The idea of "hull down" is to hide as much of hte tank as possible - so even a Lee/Gant can hide everything below the 75mm gun and this would still be useful. To a tanker used to equiopment with only 1 main armament and that in a turret, exposing any of the hull would mean they were not what they thought or were taught "hull down" was. But I bet they still hid as much of the tank as they could wnehever possible! As someone else pointed out, I have no idea whether this was actually modelled in CMAK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: The idea of "hull down" is to hide as much of hte tank as possible - so even a Lee/Gant can hide everything below the 75mm gun and this would still be useful. To a tanker used to equiopment with only 1 main armament and that in a turret, exposing any of the hull would mean they were not what they thought or were taught "hull down" was. But I bet they still hid as much of the tank as they could wnehever possible! Um, I read the italicised piece of the article CW quoted as saying exactly the opposite... ... it was _either_ hull down 37 _or_ use the 75, abd be essentially exposed. That was what that article seemed to be saying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Hull down is a fighting position. No one in their right mind would seek a fighting position that masks 2/3 of their firepower. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by Kingfish: Hull down is a fighting position. No one in their right mind would seek a fighting position that masks 2/3 of their firepower. Well now that depends. At this point in the war, the 37mm was still marginally useful against a lot of armor. If you thought it could handle what it was faced with, you might choose to leave as much of your tank concealed as possible. That said, I'd bet your assertion is right more often than wrong. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haohmaru Posted November 23, 2003 Author Share Posted November 23, 2003 Very interesting article about the M3, and it does raise a few questions. Obviously in CM you cannot distinguish between hull down, exposing only the top turret, and hull down, exposing almost everything so the 75mm gun can fire but hiding a little bit of the tank. that's a good observation about the mg being blocked too. I think by "indirect" fire support the article is talking about hitting fortified positions with HE, not firing at a tank, as it would be almost impossible to hit a tank if you cannot see it or aim at it directly! And just looking at the way the M3 fires in CMAK, it's shooting straight at the tank, not lobbing the shells in the air AVRE style. So, it would be good to hear from Madmatt or someone for an explanation, is this how it is meant to be, or is it a limitation of the old engine? Also, as stated before, I'd like to know if any of the allied vehicles have some kind of rating for optics, otherwise playing as them is going to feel like playing as the Russians again. Haoh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: So you don't get this wierd "hull down, MG blocked", which you _do_ get for the M3. I'm thinkin' "MG blocked, geez, what about the 75".You are mistaken about the hull MGs being located above the 75mm. The hull MGs are in fixed positions just above the lower hull-glacis seam on the left side. You can see their ports in this screenshot posted by Andreas. . No barrels protrude so you have to look for them. Michael [ November 23, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: Um, I read the italicised piece of the article CW quoted as saying exactly the opposite... ... it was _either_ hull down 37 _or_ use the 75, abd be essentially exposed. That was what that article seemed to be saying. That part of the article is nonssense - it speaks of having to fully expose the whole tank to use the 75mm - have a look at the photos that accompany it - up to HALF the tank could be shielded by terrain while using the 75mm! Now what do you think they did - sit on the highest ridgeline with het whole tank showing, or some distance behin d it with just the minimum amount of the tank showing as required to use the 75? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Haohmaru: Firstly is about optics. From the demo it seems that once again only the German units have optics modelled, because at least from looking at all the units on the allied side, none of them have mention of anything different from standard optics. The CMBB manual states that Russian optics were not implemented due to lack of information, that is fair enough. Now I know absolutely nothing about the subject, but surely there would be plenty of information available about American, British etc optics. So, my question is, are they modelled, and if not, why not? It seems unfair to give these bonuses to only the German side.They are modeled... however, early on, they sucked. Tunesia is a bad example for Allied optics 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 The simple fact is that the Germans manufactured, and indeed continue to manufacture, the best optics in the world. To this day the U.S. Army uses Steiner binos. Allied optics were either imported from Germany or based on them. With the supply cut off it took a while to achieve anthing like the same quality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Is it not the case that Allied optics never quite matched the best ones available to the Germans? There was a thread about this early this year... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Is it not the case that Allied optics never quite matched the best ones available to the Germans? There was a thread about this early this year... Michael Probably, but they do improve. The early American optics were throwbacks to the Civil War [ November 23, 2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Berlichtingen ] 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.