Yellow livered IS2's

[Battlefront.com]

hobbes,

I also noticed this and posted on the topic under Cowardly Russians? a few days ago. The point should also be made on the numbers of tanks visible to each side. 100 T34's should not retreat from 1 Tiger!

The number of this vs. that is irrelevant. Each unit (tanks included) behave "selfishly" because they have no real awareness of what is around them other than what they are shooting at, what is shooting at them, and what is shooting at friendlies. This is somewhat realistic because in a real tank battle it was usual for each tank of a platoon to quickly became disoriented and lose track of what was going on around them. Sometimes this was a good thing, with one tank making a successful lone stand not realizing that his other 4 buddies were in flames or turning tale. Other times it would be the opposite, with one tank getting freaked out at the thought of being alone and leaving, even though his buddies were right there all the time.

This is something we will address with the engine rewrite. At the time we wrote the code, it was asking too much of the hardware to figure out complex relationships like this.

Cpt.Kloss,

Is it a joke? IS2 was DESIGNED to fight Tigers!

Rune corrected you on this one already.

I suppose any cowering crew (especially against weaker german armor)would be shot without any martial court sentence...

Only in Hollywood films.

Sometimes I think that someone from Battlefront has a great love for german army to the extend of bending history

The only way I can answer this, without getting personal, is to simply state that you have no idea what or whom you are talking about. We have no pro-German bias. In fact, if we are biased at all, it would be against the Germans simply because we don't buy into a lot of the anti-Soviet BS that is passed off for historical fact.

BTW, with CMBO we had an equal number of people accusing us, on the same day in fact, of being Anti-American, Anti-Commonwealth, and Anti-German. Hell, sometimes were accused of this in the same thread all at once

What's the conclussion? CMBB german are UBER. Get use to it. I do not know whether fault lies in accuracy and shell quality/penetration data.

Nah, the fault usually lies with ill informed and rude people that don't quite know what they are talking about.

MrNoobie ,

so uh is this going to be patched?

Sure thing. Based on Cpt.Kloss' excellent and well documented arguments, I have asked Charles to make all the German stuff "less über". I expect that will fix everything

Cpt.Kloss,

No Steve, you are wrong. Inexperienced crews were often more reckless and daring.

Wrong, but only because you use this argument to rule out what I said, which is perfectly true. What you speak of is something that CMBB models very well... a poorly trained crew, buttoned up (especially) is more likely than not to get tunnel vision and make poor decisions. And when they do attack, they tend to not do nearly as well. If the other player isn't an idiot or VERY unlucky, this will result in a few less poorly trained crews inside their vehicles quite quickly.

The same situation was on Western Front, where (just before Overlord) american and british green tankers were told their tanks were actually equal!

Those were well trained crews, just not battle hardened. And as Rune pointed out, they were trained (even if informally by vets at the front) to not engage certain tanks in certain situations. Not even attempt it.

Rune,

Good points, of course.

Steve

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by rune:

No Kloss, YOU are wrong.

1. It was designed to kill Tigers and Panthers? Well, the prototype kv-13 was out 9 months before the Tiger was even known about. Once the Tiger was known, it sped up production, but the tank was NOT designed to kill Tiger and Panthers. SO what was it designed to do?

2. From Valera's wonderful RUSSIAN site on their tanks, you can read this:

The JS-2 was a heavy breakthrough tank, ie, tank intended for breaking through the enemy lines of defense. In toher words, the main targets of this tank were infantry and artillery. Thus, a tank with a large gun with greath HE capability was needed. History shows that the JS-2 used about 70% of it HE rounds and only 30% of its AP rounds.

3. A comparison to the German tanks can be found here:

http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_3.html

4. Russian tactics as told by a VETERAN of the time, was NOT to engage tanks, unless no other choice. Tanks would withdraw and "sucker" them into AT Gun range. Of course, different fronts used different tactics at various times.

5. New crews were uber daring? More fiction. Death Traps by Belton Cooper talks about green crews quite a bit. In no way were they willing to rush out and take risks. Yes, they were told that, but NO, they did not believe it. He mentions several battles where the green crews withdrew without orders, leaving the infantry hanging to dry. Notice, GREEN CREWS.

Rune

1.And the change of D5T gun for D25T after Kursk battle. Small difference, isn't it?.

2. Much cheaper were ISU assault guns. Why bother to produce IS2 then? Concerning usage of HE ammo: Most WW2 AFV's used MUCH more HE ammo, even american M10/M36 which were designed to fight tanks.

4. "No other choice" is a key phrase here. What you wrote is an obvious truth while defending, but after 1943 russians were constantly pushing.

Russians tanks DID engage german because they had to (and a lot of them was destroyed - not while r e t r e a t i n g/CMBB/but while a d v a n c i n g). Anyway "NOT to engage" did not mean escaping while having a clear side or rear shot.

5. After deeper thought I must say you MAY be right here.

[Wilhammer]

Ahh, your troops won't fight to the death, huh?

Bloody well done BTS, as they should not.

Now, if you ever get around to the Pacific Theater, you can suspend that part of the code for the IJ forces.

===========================

[Nolloff]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

Is it a joke? IS2 was DESIGNED to fight Tigers!

I suppose any cowering crew (especially against weaker german armor)would be shot without any martial court sentence...

IN CMBB I think under ANY conditions this would be IMPOSSIBLE (CMBB SU76 would never think of engaging Panther even under very favourable condition).

[/QB]

Cpt.,

regarding the first comment I quoted above: I was referring to a situation where IS2s are facing Tigers which are partially hidden in trees over 600m of totally open ground. Both forces are on a ridge. Forcing the IS2s onto the ridge resulted in DEATH. The TACAIs decision was better than mine. In the end I killed all Tigers with a 1:1 kill ratio, on one occassion I killed 3 Tigers while losing 2 IS2s. This sounds like a pretty good result to me. I had to use shoot and scoot to achieve it. Bloody good command.

Regarding the second comment I quoted above: You are wrong. SU76 will certainly NOT face a Panther in a head-on engagement. The chance of getting shot for cowering is probably lower than getting torn to shreds in a frontal engagement. It is still possible to ambush them.

Please don´t get back to me, telling me it isn´t because I´ve just done it. Yes, one SU76 retreated AFTER IT REALIZED the Panther had sighted it and was turning into its direction. Damn clever behaviour. It disappeared out of sight to live and fight another turn. A second SU76 in ambush killed the Panther without retreating.

Nolloff

[ November 26, 2002, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

[flammenwerfer]

The number of this vs. that is irrelevant.

This seems counter-intuitive...threat level as determined by the individual, selfish tank will be bolstered by the rest of the pln that he is still in contact with, especially a HQ vehicle.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi all,

OK, I got a file just now that was supposed to show wimpy IS-2s. It didn't

The range was 75 meters. A GREEN IS-2 was facing off against some unknown experienced Panther. The first thing to note is that at this range, no tank is happy. This is suicide distance. The Panther is just as likely to KO the IS-2 as the other way around. Actually, the Panther is more likely to win because it has a higher rate of fire, but I am pretty sure the TacAI doesn't take this into account.

Anyhoo, the Green IS-2 did the smart thing and that was to reverse out of LOS. If there was any doubt of that, there was a Regular IS-2 just next to the Green one, which reacted slower because the Panther was targeting the other IS-2. Once the Regular IS-2 figured out what was going on, it too reversed. But unlike his Green comrade, he blew up Thus showing the wisdom of withdrawing.

Conclusion -> nothing surprising or unrealistic in this example.

Steve

[Cpt.Kloss]

Steve,

We got a bit sidetracked. I see you claim self -preservation mechanism in CMBB is right.

I say no, it is wrong. Under CMBB rules russian tanks would have never left their starting positions during the Kusk battle (and any other). I repeat once again: as far as I know most russian tanks were destroyed while advancing not retreating.

regards

[rune]

Another thought came my way.

The 100mm high velocity at gun was considered for the IS series then dropped in favor of the 122mm, DUE TO THE HE Ammo. At this point, the Russians were on the offensive and considered the German Infantry and artillery and pillboxes more of a problem then the "Uber tanks".

Also add to the fact that until summer of 1944, there was a problem with 122mm AP Ammo. The Panther could only be penetrated at 6--700 meters. The rounds were breaking apart. The problem fixed itself when the German armor quality decrease, and the ammo would cause cracks in the German tanks.

Now add in the fact the even the poor Russian 76.2mm ZiS-3 gun was penetrating or cracking the armor of the IS-2 at ranges of 500-600 meters in test firings. The german High Velocity guns were much better then the ZiS-3. The hull armor was not increased till June-July 1944, and even then older designs rolled off the assembly line. As for the turret, it was made to fit the 85mm and was balanced. Plans to add armor to it were all scrapped due to the fact the whole turret became unbalanced.

Rune

[Battlefront.com]

Flammenwerfer ,

This seems counter-intuitive...threat level as determined by the individual, selfish tank will be bolstered by the rest of the pln that he is still in contact with, especially a HQ vehicle.

Not quite correct. Individual threat level, for a second to second engagement, will be determined by its own selfish situation. In other words, "I think I am going to die. What the F do I care if my buddy might be able to get a shot off after I am dead?"

What is lacking in CM, because of CPU and memory constraints, is the ability for the overall willingness to fight in a given situation to be taken into consideration. For example, one PzIV Lang appears at 900m to challenge 5 advancing T-70s in an open field. Currently, all 5 might bugger off. This might be correct, or if they were Vets they might have kept going forward but in wildly different directions in order to get a flank shot. Some might obey the orders, some might not. This is how the game works now.

How it should work, in theory, is that the T-70 Platoon would make a sort of group decision to either bugger off or seek a flank shot at the risk of losing an individual tank or two. The ability to pull off such a coordinated decision should be dependent on a sort of group dynamic first, then an individual one. To put it into old paper and dice terms, you first roll to see what the FORMATION does, then roll for each INDIVIDUAL tank to see if they follow or not.

This is an over simplification, but I think people can understand what I am getting at. At least I hope so

Steve

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hi all,

OK, I got a file just now that was supposed to show wimpy IS-2s. It didn't

The range was 75 meters. A GREEN IS-2 was facing off against some unknown experienced Panther. The first thing to note is that at this range, no tank is happy. This is suicide distance. The Panther is just as likely to KO the IS-2 as the other way around. Actually, the Panther is more likely to win because it has a higher rate of fire, but I am pretty sure the TacAI doesn't take this into account.

Anyhoo, the Green IS-2 did the smart thing and that was to reverse out of LOS. If there was any doubt of that, there was a Regular IS-2 just next to the Green one, which reacted slower because the Panther was targeting the other IS-2. Once the Regular IS-2 figured out what was going on, it too reversed. But unlike his Green comrade, he blew up Thus showing the wisdom of withdrawing.

Conclusion -> nothing surprising or unrealistic in this example.

Steve

---------------------------------

Conclusion: yes, it is unrealistic that Panther did not retreated against two IS2, but two IS2 retreated against Panther.

[Nolloff]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

Steve,

I repeat once again: as far as I know most russian tanks were destroyed while advancing not retreating.

regards

You addressed Steve but allow me to say that I don´t quite understand what you´re saying.

What do you mean with advancing? Tank/turret front facing the enemy? When discussing this self-preservation mechanism we are talking about a couple of meters the tank might move backwards while it still faces the enemy not the fact if the operation/battle is a Russian advance or retreat.

My IS2s dying in Jaegermeister die while moving into the direction of the enemy. I´m not sure how this contradicts the point you´re trying to make.

Nolloff

[rune]

1. It doesn't change the fact you said it was designed to kill them, and it WASN'T. They could have gone with the better AP weapon, the 100mm gun, but DIDN'T.

2. Why didn't they just go with the ISU-152? Maybe to do with the advantages of a turret vehicles vs a non-turret vehicle? I see you also ignored that the russians THEMSELVES say it was meant as a breakthrough tank, and NOT a anti-tank weapon. Or are they wrong about their own tanks?

4. Or maybe this had to do with sheer numbers? A tank Corp on the attack covered 1.5 km width, in the same sector, on average was slightly over 2 German tanks. With those odds, or course they would stay in the attack.

5. Glad you changed your mind on this. I have all sorts of AARs that state the green units made stupid mistakes, ran away, or did other idiotic things instead of believing the crap they were told in training.

Rune

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by rune:

4. Or maybe this had to do with sheer numbers? A tank Corp on the attack covered 1.5 km width, in the same sector, on average was slightly over 2 German tanks. With those odds, or course they would stay in the attack.

Rune

----------------------

Rune just read what Steve wrote.

Two IS2 retreated against Panther, Panther did not. Taking into consideration your real war exaple and Steve's game example

it appears that in CMBB those 2 german tanks whould stay on the field (because inidividually they had better chance of winning)while a whole russian tank corps would retreat (because numbers does not matter in CMBB self -preservation mechanism).

[flammenwerfer]

Not quite correct. Individual threat level, for a second to second engagement, will be determined by its own selfish situation. In other words, "I think I am going to die. What the F do I care if my buddy might be able to get a shot off after I am dead?"

Safety in numbers, albeit a false sense of security because the threat level is dispersed onto the entire pltn or co of tanks.

It's very easy for a mob of Ohio State fans to flip and burn a Police Cruiser but for two guys, it's impossible...

[rune]

Doesn't change my point. You are trying to determine how 2 tanks react as compared to a tank corp. Do this, create a scenario with 2 Panthers, get enough points to get a Russian tank Corp, then have the Russians attack. I will bet the Panthers are dead so fast that they don't cause a retreat. Hmm...behavior would be correct.

Rune

[Nolloff]

Numbers do give an advantage although not in the sense of the individual tank feeling "stronger" or showing different behaviour compared to what it would do was it alone.

Attacking with a greater number of units increases the number of tanks which individually do not become threatened directly. While some tanks might move to cover when receiving fire or getting targetted, others not receiving fire and not getting targetted will be able to engage the enemy and take advantage of the situation.

So, the mechanisms on individual unit level to consider number of friendlies vs. number of foes are not there but the overall outcome is certainly more in favor of the side which can aim more guns on target.

Nolloff

[Battlefront.com]

Cpt.Kloss,

Conclusion: yes, it is unrealistic that Panther did not retreated against two IS2, but two IS2 retreated against Panther.

Conclusion: you are acting more like a troll than someone who is interested in an intellectual debate.

Did you see the file I saw? Did I say the Panther DIDN'T pull back? No, you didn't and no I didn't. In fact, the Panther did pull back, but initially it didn't. Not being on the other side of the game I don't know what the experience level was. It could also be luck.

But the fact remains, pulling back was the correct decision.

And please... do not confuse individual tactical matchups with anything higher. This is what I consider a "rookie" mistake when looking at what history has to teach us. Unfortunately, it is something I see here all the time. With CMBO it was the famous (infamous) "it took 5 Shermans to knock out one Panther" argument

Another mistake is to take things out of statistical context. This one setup I looked at means nothing from a statistical standpoint. One would have to repeat this exact matchup several hundred times to conclude anything more than what I concluded.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Flammenwerfer,

Safety in numbers, albeit a false sense of security because the threat level is dispersed onto the entire pltn or co of tanks.

Correct. See above comments about "rolling" description.

It's very easy for a mob of Ohio State fans to flip and burn a Police Cruiser but for two guys, it's impossible...

Not that this ever happens in Ohio

Seriously, this is a good example. It takes a mob to flip a car. But if a cop is coming at two of the guys with pepper spray at the ready, do they say "I'll stay where I am at and hope to get this car flipped over before I find out if he is coming to spray me or someone else".

In other words, a group mentality generally only holds until the individual sees that he is being singled out. Sacrificing for the greater good is something very rarely seen on the battlefield. If it was common, they would give awards to cowards instead of heros.

Steve

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by rune:

Doesn't change my point. You are trying to determine how 2 tanks react as compared to a tank corp. Do this, create a scenario with 2 Panthers, get enough points to get a Russian tank Corp, then have the Russians attack. I will bet the Panthers are dead so fast that they don't cause a retreat. Hmm...behavior would be correct.

Rune

----------------------------------

Well, it's extreme example.

I think that Panther's crew should have wet pants against a few IS2's.(assuming the same level of morale and experience).

While IS crew (as Steve says) does not care that there are other friendly tanks, Panther's crew CARES that there are several, not just one enemy.

But anyway, this mechanism acts very well against clearly superior enemy. But against not-so-clearly-superior in does not.

Panther's crew says: we have more or less substantial killing chance percentage advantage

We will NEVER retreat./which, particulary during 1:1 duels /equal morale, experience and fight conditions/can MOSTLY be true/

IS2 crew says: more ours then theirs died in such duels. We must ALWAYS retreat!- it is not true.

"Many of ours destroyed them. We can penetrate their armor, actually we did it once. Maybe he does not see us? -"

So my conclussion is: mechanism is needed, but it should have a higher treshhold against only slightly better enemy.

[flammenwerfer]

Steve

In the file I sent you, the Reg IS-2 waited ~30 seconds before reversing and shooting at the same time...seems strange behavior. Why not shoot and than reverse like the panther did or why risk shooting at all?

In general, the closer the range the less viable retreat becomes as an option...

At his point it becomes a duel- shoot or die

[ November 26, 2002, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Flammenwerfer ]

[rune]

Actually what Steve said makes sense to me. The green IS2 is targeted right away, and beats feet towards the rear. The non-targeted IS2 tries to load up a shell and when it sees the turret turning towards it, says, "enough of this" and tries to get out of dodge also. A few extra seconds, and who knows, it may have gotten the shot off. Realistic behavior....try to take it out before it takes me out. However, once I know it sees me, time to get to safety. Remember the IS2 has the capability to fire 1.5 to 2.0 rounds a minute. Another reason it is not a great anti-tank weapon. Earlier version were even slower then that.

Rune

[lassner.1]

Well, I don’t want to overstate my case since the following suggestion may be unrealistic, but the one thing that I would like to see – given the near impossibility of achieving a hit while moving (in this case retreating) – is for the retreating armor to stop momentarily while squeezing off a shot. At least this way they would not be running away AND wasting ammunition!

[Battlefront.com]

In the file I sent you, the Reg IS-2 waited ~30 seconds before reversing and shooting at the same time...seems strange behavior. Why not shoot and than reverse like the panther did or why risk shooting at all?

The gun might not have been on target, loaded, or something similar to that. There is also a great deal of randomness built into the system. If you recompiled that turn 100 times I bet you would see a wide range of outcomes. Again, we will get nowhere by looking too hard at any one example.

In general, the closer the range the less viable retreat becomes as an option...

At his point it becomes a duel- shoot or die

I disagree, at least if stated as an absolute. It takes a cool nerve to deal with such a situation. Cool nerves are hard to come by. The instinct is to get the Hell out of there. Remember, the driver is not the gunner or the TC. The driver is autonomous when you get right down to it. I have seen combat reports of drivers disregarding direct orders and driving away, for example.

In general... asking your tanks to engage so close is not realistic. This was something that was generally only done by accident. Therefore, CM's "problem" is that it allowed you to close in that close to begin with. Sometimes it won't let you, but because CM lacks situational awareness and memory, it can't do that much to prevent the player from doing this.

As with any "unrealistic" behavior the Human can enforce, the results that come from such actions are kinda hard to compare to real historical examples. The reason being is that there aren't a lot of examples to draw from. This is sorta like trying to figure out how effective the IS-3 was in combat vs. a King Tiger. The two never saw combat against each other, so it is kinda hard to say what would happen with any real authority. All we can do is make a best, informed model and let the chips fall where they may.

Steve

[Spinlock]

One thing perhaps someone can clear up for me. Whenever playing the late war Russians I'm constantly frustrated by the IS-2's incredibly slow rate of fire. Playing a night QB with a friend who bought a platoon of Tigers, I almost ripped my hair out waiting for the IS-2's to fire at PB range.

Luckily, I was able to ambush most of the Tigers from the flank and rear.

Can anyone explain historically why the IS-2 had such long reload times?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Spinlock:

One thing perhaps someone can clear up for me. Whenever playing the late war Russians I'm constantly frustrated by the IS-2's incredibly slow rate of fire. Playing a night QB with a friend who bought a platoon of Tigers, I almost ripped my hair out waiting for the IS-2's to fire at PB range.

Luckily, I was able to ambush most of the Tigers from the flank and rear.

Can anyone explain historically why the IS-2 had such long reload times?

Just a guess?

Is that the 2 man turret crew problem ( i.e. lack of dedicated loader?)

Is the ammo so heavy they load it slowly?

I'm just guessing

-tom w