Sherm 105's attacking armor (rant/vent)

[Dirtweasle]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

...I hope this helps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seem logical. I'd realy like to see BTS comment on it.

There are a couple things I wonder about the example given here, such as;

Was the tank buttoned?

Was the tank fully manned? Or was there a casualty in the tank crew?

And here is the a couple other things I think might trump the tanks TacAI logic;

Is there enough time to travese the turret? (Those M4-105s have slow or very slow turrets.)

Is there enough time to reload a special round? Does ROF come into play with the TacAI? Also, I've never seen a clear answer if tanks are considered to have a round chambered or not. So if the tanks has HE loaded, there may be a problem with their willingness in firing off that round to get a special round chambered in time.

[Warmaker]

What experience were those Sherman 105 crews anyway? That might have an effect. Also regarding those flank shots on the PzKpfw IV keep in mind that it and along with many Panzers, had Schurzen...the side skirts meant to act as safety against hollow charge© rounds. I've seen many of my JgPzIV, PanzerIVs, and Panther As survive such hits on the flank due to the side skirts. Also, if you're trying those frontal shots against the Panther or the like, forget it.

[Cybeq]

I just had a similar experience in a PBEM I am playing. I had flanked a Churchill with my StuH42. I was hull down 170 meters away and aiming at his side armor. I had 2 c rounds. The to hit percentage read 71% and kill: none. Even though I had a kill: none I thought that was the rating with the main ammo type (HE), not HC. So I left the order stand and sent my turn. When I got it back I watched the movie in horror. Even though I had the drop on him and got the first shot and the range was close my Veteran StuH fired SMOKE!!!!!! What was he thinking!?!? The Churchill rotated his turret and fired twice. The first shot was a gun hit, no damage, then..... BLAMO! My StuH was toasted. Crud.

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Specterx:

In contrast to all of this, I was playing a game where I was Axis defending against an Allied attack. My JpzIV, which was my primary AT asset, got into a position where it traded head-on shots at medium range with a PRIEST. A PRIEST. The priest fired two shots, the second one hit and destroyed the Jpz. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

was that against me? i was allies when the same thing happened. told the priest to move up a big hill and then reverse expecting it would fire a shot to distract the jdIV while another tank could take a shot at it but instead decided to duke it out. i was pissin myself when that happened, then boom!

and the guy i was playing had said that he loved jdIVs too.

priests are the most macho of the holy SPs...

[Hedgehog]

You might try firing at the ground right before the enemy target with a 105. Hope you take a tread out then you can target him next round for the kill. Also if your round goes too far you may end up hitting your target.

[Trooper]

I had a 105 with two tigers and a King Tiger to its credit before being knocked out... (Can't beat those flank shots)

What really miffed me in a recent TCP game was a 105mm vs 37mm standoff.

I had spotted the 37mm and moved my tank back up a hill to have LOS to the gun (Which I told it to target) After a couple of seconds, but before it fires a round, it decides to shoot up some infantry way off in the middle of nowhere.

All this time, the 37mm is bouncing off the front of the tank.

Next turn, I tell it to target the 37mm -again-. The first shot from the FlaK gun takes out the 105mm howitzer. Then they get a mobility kill. The crew abandons.

I was most annoyed.

NTM

[Doug Beman]

All:

I believe this is a long-time known issue. When you give a FIRE order to a vehicle that has HE and C ammo, CM takes a look at

a)how much ammo of each type there is,

b)the % chance of kill w/ C, and

c)the % chance of kill w/ HE

to decide which ammo to use. If either C or HE give a good kill % the vehicle will use it. If, however, the TacAI belives that neither ammo type has a good chance it will simply not fire. Did you ever have a chance to see the % kill chance?

There's also an issue in which ammo selection is affected (I don't say based on as I believe this is not the case) the ratio of HE to C ammo. If the vehicle has a LOT of HE ammo and only a few C rounds (as Priests seem to; I've seen loadouts of 55 HE to 5 C) the vehicle will ONLY consider using HE, and sort of "ignore" the C ammo. Only when the HE supply drops will the C come into play.

In the tests you run, fiddle with the ammo loadouts of the Priest. If you give it 15 C rounds and 1 HE, it should IMMEDIATELY load up C and forget about HE.

DjB

[Doug Beman]

More:

the % kill chance is ALWAYS for the BEST type of ammo the vehicle has, so if your StuH42 had NONE listed, then even its C ammo had NO chance, and that's why it didn't fire.

The "firing smoke" is also a known issue. Vehicles will, in the middle of a turn, suddenly begin firing smoke, often at odd places or at targets that they SHOULD be hitting w/ HE shells. It's happening right now in a PBEM; a Panther tank has used up all its smoke by switching to S 10 seconds into a turn and dropping a friggin cloudbank on top of my opponent's infantry (who were taking a beating but were able to bookback into the trees, much to my anger)

DjB

[Doug Beman]

Once more into the breach:

jason, as Charles does almost all the coding on his own (Steve is in charge of artwork) there seems little chance of a drop-ball during subroutines programming.

Does range have any effect on the 105's HE penetration? I didn't think it did, or at least only a small amount. Has anybody compared the 105's HE figures w/ the PzIV's armor? If the 105's HE is incapable of killing the PzIV, and the ammo-selection issue I just posted about is to blame, this is what happened:

your Priest said "cannot kill with HE. Can kill with C but cannot use C because HE:C ratio very high. Therefor cannot kill AT ALL."

DjB

[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[not another gamer]

Sometimes that smoke works great.

Recent PBEM had to cross river over two loooong bridges. I layed done lots of arty smoke but a nasty 'Vet' Hetzer still had LOS.

While my 'reg' 105 was charging full speed across a RR bridge it rotated and put a nice smoke round right in front of that Hetzer. It was beautifull.

But, I'm sure it works against you sometimes as others have stated.

[Silvio Manuel]

when a good thread comes along...

you must BUMP IT

bump that thread

[Moon]

Funny, the two examples given on this page (sorry, only read this page, not much time for forum today) show that some things in CM work exactly the way they are supposed to work. Disclaimer: I do not intend to single out anybody particular in the following examples and nothing is meant personal. I have made the same mistakes often enough myself and continue to do so, usually slapping my forehead one second after hitting GO!

Someone said: "I had flanked a Churchill with my StuH42. I was hull down 170 meters away and aiming at his side armor. I had 2 c rounds. The to hit percentage read 71% and kill: none. Even though I had a kill: none I thought that was the rating with the main ammo type (HE), not HC. So I left the order stand and sent my turn." (snip)

Here the problem starts - you are expecting the AI to read your mind.

(contd) "When I got it back I watched the movie in horror. Even though I had the drop on him and got the first shot and the range was close my Veteran StuH fired SMOKE!!!!!! What was he thinking!?!?" (snip)

He was thinking - the two C shells are on the back rack, it'll take me half a minute to get rid of the HE one in the tube and slam in the C round. I have no chance against this thing with my HE, and I have a smoke round on the ready rack. Gunner, load smoke, driver, reverse! That's what I would have done. Orders from higher ups? Can k my a... CM models this kind of "under fire" behaviour of troops excellently, and you'll never know what you get until it happens. Great stuff!

Someone else said: "I had spotted the 37mm and moved my tank back up a hill to have LOS to the gun (Which I told it to target) After a couple of seconds, but before it fires a round, it decides to shoot up some infantry way off in the middle of nowhere. All this time, the 37mm is bouncing off the front of the tank."

Classic. Tanks, especially buttoned up but also when open, have an inherent "blindness" coded in (a sort of relative spotting on a small scale). Even when you see the enemy AT gun, the tank which just crested a hill and didn't have LOS to it might not. Issuing target orders won't always help. BTW, issuing TARGET AREA orders sometimes is better in such a case (which reflects nicely the real life event that the tank got the order to suppress a hidden AT gun there and there), unless some substantial threat comes along. The WORST option is to have the tank crest a hill and expose him to a lot of targets - this is asking for trouble, as the AI (the TC) might find himself a little... befuddled with so many target options

I guess what I want to point out is that CM does try to simulate the vagaries of human behaviour under fire. Your units are not robots, but rather a piece of fuzzy code which might do this or that based on "probabilities", and you better learn to live (or die) with it. I would consider one of the most important tactical skills which one should learn when playing CM, to be to learn to plan for exactly these situations. Use two tanks, not one. Go around the hill, not over. If you put your bet on a "kill chance: none, but what the heck I have C charges" do not be surprised to lose the duel three out of four times.

Apologize if I sound like a smartass. Really don't mean to - but somebody wrote "rant/vent" into the thread title

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Moon ]

[tenfive2]

Have to 2nd with Moon here...

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the two C shells are on the back rack, it'll take me half a minute to get rid of the HE one in the tube and slam in the C round. I have no chance against this thing with my HE, and I have a smoke round on the ready rack. Gunner, load smoke, driver, reverse! That's what I would have done. Orders from higher ups? Can k my a... CM models this kind of "under fire" behaviour of troops excellently, and you'll never know what you get until it happens. Great stuff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Moon,

Are you saying that CM models ammo layout / access within the vehicle when the Tac AI determines Hit probability?

[tenfive2]

Don't forget the left-handed loaders...

[Gyrene]

Moon's story of the AI behaving like it should would make sense if this kind of stuff didn't happen all the time.

I had an 105 Sherman (Crack) of my own shoot 3 HE shells at the same PzIV and hit it three times. (Kill chance was "good") It never fired a single C charge of which it had 10 would have easily dispatched that PzIV, instead it kept acting like an idiot sitting there ans shooting HE and died, and BTW the first hit was a front turret hit with the tank unbuttoned...That should have killed or at the very least stunned that TC...Remember this is a 105mm HE shell hitting that PzIV before it had spotted the Sherman, instead it buttoned up and immediately returned fire.

"the two C shells are on the back rack, it'll take me half a minute to get rid of the HE " is a poor excuse for a programming lapse.

Gyrene

[Moon]

Kingfish, not as far as I know. The "story" I gave was one possible real life explanation of what might have happened. What CM does have is a kind of "delay" feature (as far as I know for tanks only) which takes into account that tanks are pretty blind beasts (and noisy and smelly, too). While CM does not feature "relative spotting" as such, it does have - let's call it - "cones of awareness" for all units in place, which makes tank sometimes react late (or not at all) to threats the player sees, but also makes, e.g., running infantry less aware of what's going on around them (and to the sides especially).

Gyrene:

"Moon's story of the AI behaving like it should would make sense if this kind of stuff didn't happen all the time."

Well, does it? I can tell you numerous stories where, in similar situations, things went smoothly and my little Greyhound popped a German ubertank from the sides, rear, you name it. So what does "all the time" mean? Often? Hell, yes, so is war - I'd expect stuff to go wrong most of the time when the best you have is a 50-50 chance (i.e. 1 on 1). Always in every single situation? Nope.

Gyrene: "I had an 105 Sherman (Crack) of my own shoot 3 HE shells at the same PzIV and hit it three times. (Kill chance was "good") It never fired a single C charge of which it had 10 would have easily dispatched that PzIV, instead it kept acting like an idiot sitting there ans shooting HE and died"(snip)

Heh, funny again how the example tells me something completely different. With a "good" kill chance, why use C ammo? To make it "über-really-overkill-very-good"? Three hits and no kill - happens. Happens usually when you're 1-on-1. Happens for both sides and one loses, the other wins. Happens less often when you maneuver to achieve 2-on-1 or better. But it strikes me: Why do we hear this kind of stories from the perspecitve of the ones who lost the duel only, claiming that something is broken? For every one of these incidents, there is somebody else with a sigh of relief on his lips and a "gosh, was I lucky" bed-time prayer.

"and BTW the first hit was a front turret hit with the tank unbuttoned...That should have killed or at the very least stunned that TC...Remember this is a 105mm HE shell hitting that PzIV before it had spotted the Sherman, instead it buttoned up and immediately returned fire."

Yeah, should have. But it didn't. Bad luck. What's broken?

"the two C shells are on the back rack, it'll take me half a minute to get rid of the HE " is a poor excuse for a programming lapse.

Would you say the same when all hit chances were 100% and all hits were kills?

[Trooper]

If I were in an infantry support tank going up against a tank tank, I damned well would use the "über-really-overkill-very-good" round.

This is my life I'm dealing with, and I don't see any reason to reduce my odds of surviving from 'pretty damned likely' to 'fair'

Just as there's no point in having money in your bank account when you die, there's no point in having AT rounds in your burning wreck. Use it or lose it.

NTM

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon:

Heh, funny again how the example tells me something completely different. With a "good" kill chance, why use C ammo? To make it "über-really-overkill-very-good"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm having deja vu about the old tungsten use threads. It took months of haranguing to convince BTS that the tungsten use code was messed.

The problem with this explanation is that the "good" kill chance was assuming the use of HEAT shells, not HE. But HE was used. 105 HE can only penetrate the Pz IV frontally through the turret. A hit anywhere else will not penetrate.

So, you've got a bunch of Sherman 105 tank commanders who are so confident in their gunner's skill that they will fire HE only at a tank that must be hit in the turret to be destroyed, even though he has HEAT rounds that will penetrate anywhere they hit, even though the Pz IV's gun will penetrate his own tank easily, even though less than half of all hits will strike the Pz IV's turret (assuming he is not hull down).

These Sherman tankers seem to have a remarkable lack of sense of self-preservation programmed into their behavior.

If only the first shot was HE, you could say the game was simulating shooting the round in the tube. But every shot thereafter is HE also, so that's not true. If this only happend once in a while you could say the programming is simulating human error and mistakes under stress. But it happens the same way every time. Try it. Make a little scenario, line up a Sherman 105 across from a Pz IV and see if it ever fires a HEAT round.

If you try this against a Tiger, HEAT is fired as HE will not penetrate the Tiger frontally anywhere.

At some point, you have to just admit there is a problem with how the TacAI selects what type of round to fire vs. certain targets. I think the evidence in this case is irrefutable.

If course, BTS isn't going to make a new patch for CM just to fix this, but hopefully the problem won't be present in CM2.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "and BTW the first hit was a front turret hit with the tank unbuttoned...That should have killed or at the very least stunned that TC...Remember this is a 105mm HE shell hitting that PzIV before it had spotted the Sherman, instead it buttoned up and immediately returned fire."

Yeah, should have. But it didn't. Bad luck. What's broken? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At no time in real life, and I dare anyone to point me to an example of this or volunteer for a real life experiment, was a tank commander who was almost ripped in two by HE able to scoot back down into his turret and immediately return fire at his tormentor. The Pz IV's turret was not pointed at the 105 Sherm, but after the hit it instantly aquired the Sherm and fired back.

There is no concussion effects on crews modelled in CM, zero. That is why über tankers can calmly dispatch hordes of innefective, but hitting enemy tanks instead of being bounced around the inside of their tanks or at the very least momentarely stunned.

But as it stands, tank crews are immune to blast effects to the point that 8" artillery could land next to the tank and all it does is button it up instead of causing all sorts of real life unpleasantness like it should.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Heh, funny again how the example tells me something completely different. With a "good" kill chance, why use C ammo? To make it "über-really-overkill-very-good"? Three hits and no kill - happens. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Three hits, no kills. Then why was the kill chance "good"? With three solid hits and no kills, I would not call that a good chance to kill.

Gyrene

[Goanna]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Beman...and dropping a friggin cloudbank on top of my opponent's infantry (who were taking a beating but were able to bookback into the trees, much to my anger)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and my satisfaction. Yes, the infantry were taking a beating, but your Panthers were worried about the 'zook teams with them that previously took out the rest of that armoured column the V's were in.

Moon, while I agree with most of what you said and am typically one of the last to ever suggest that anything needs fixing, I think this 105 issue needs at least some further investigation. We have here, and I have done my own, several tests which attempt to be scientific in their isolation and evaluation of the problem. The results show that 105s will virtually never use their C rounds. I think this deserves a bit more investigation by you before you dismiss it all as just sour grapes.

[Holien]

Hi,

This will need a test rig set up to prove it for sure and people prepared to run the tests long enough to statistically prove there is an issue.

If there is, and if BTS do a future fix then it might be resolved.

Until that time I am happy to live with the explanation's put forward by Moon. The game is not perfect and the fixes for CM2 and HMG's etc... will move it closer to perfection!

But in the meantime I will explain away, things like this with "S*** Happens" and in future I should be more skillful at engaging my enemies with what little I have.

Moon's explanations are ways for you to deal with the sad fact that not everything in life is controllable.

While I am not prepared to run such tests I would hope some others with more time on their hands would do so, that way BTS can benefit and improve the code for CM2 if it truely requires changing.

H

[Vanir Ausf B]

My testing shows the following:

1. The chance to kill shown with the target command is for HEAT rounds, not HE, as long as the tank has at least 1 HEAT round.

2. Vs. Mk IV, Sherman will only fire HE.

3. Vs. Tiger, Sherman will only fire HEAT.

4. Vs. Panther, in the test I did the results were very strange. If the Sherman has smoke rounds it will fire them. If not, it fired a mix of HE and HEAT!. The tank I tested had 52 HE rounds and 4 HEAT. On the first turn of combat it fired HE with the first round, HEAT with the next 2 rounds, and then switched back to HE for the 4th round.

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Moon]

Trooper: "If I were in an infantry support tank going up against a tank tank, I damned well would use the "über-really-overkill-very-good" round."

That's your choice. It wouldn't be mine. I'd pick up my tank, hurl it on my back and carry it into cover. The Lt. in that tank obviously had yet another view on the situation and he paid for it. Is he a "stupid idiot"? Maybe, but I see a lot of "heroes" in my games, too, so it evens out.

Even if the ammo selection for the 105 had flaws (I am not convinced), the fact remains that the 105 was an anti-infantry enhanced Sherman. If you duel with it against another medium tank under any situation but sheer despair, you get what you are betting on.

Vanir: "At some point, you have to just admit there is a problem with how the TacAI selects what type of round to fire vs. certain targets. I think the evidence in this case is irrefutable."

Is that so? I just ran a quick and dirty test on a flat open map with a couple of 105 and PzIV. Guess what? The 105 fired HEAT on his second shot.

http://www.gamesofwar.de/105vpziv.jpg

http://www.gamesofwar.de/105vpziv2.jpg

Gyrene: "At no time in real life, and I dare anyone to point me to an example of this or volunteer for a real life experiment, was a tank commander who was almost ripped in two by HE able to scoot back down into his turret and immediately return fire at his tormentor. The Pz IV's turret was not pointed at the 105 Sherm, but after the hit it instantly aquired the Sherm and fired back."

HE shells, like tornadoes, can have strange effects. Since it's pieces of Shrapnel doing most of the harm (the serious one at least), and these are not spread out 100% evenly across the area of effect, you CAN be standing relatively close to a shell (especially if most of your body is protected from the effects by armor) and receive small to zero injuries. Depends on the training and guts of the commander how shocked he'll be by such a near hit, of course. And by the way, it's the gunner doing the shooting, not the TC.

Gyrene: "There is no concussion effects on crews modelled in CM, zero."

True, as far as I know. What is modelled is armor flaking and being shocked after a crew member (usually the TC) was killed. What is also modelled are secondary damage to tracks, gun (incl. optics), so there is a decent chance that a large HE round will cause some problems, even if it doesn't penetrate. It didn't happen in this particular case, just as a "concussion" and crew being stunned is not automatic from a HE hit (or any hit). There is no way the situation described above (105 vs. PzIV) should result in an automatic win for the 105, and CM models that correctly IMO. You can dispute details, but the simulation holds as it is.

Goanna: "We have here, and I have done my own, several tests which attempt to be scientific in their isolation and evaluation of the problem. The results show that 105s will virtually never use their C rounds. I think this deserves a bit more investigation by you before you dismiss it all as just sour grapes."

I do not dimiss all as sour grapes. But I think that the "sour" part influences how people argue - and how often they do. While it's true that CM is not nearly 100% perfect (and has never claimed to be), often I see complaints where there should be none. Call them "excuses for why I lost" or call them "adrenaline rush venting", they are addressing the wrong problem (CM) and not the real problem (bad luck or bad tactics).

Before you read on, please make sure you read my disclaimer in the initial post, though - I do not intend to single anybody out in particular. I've made mistakes playing CM more than enough and continue to do them, and that's all part of the game. Playing US side most often, I've cursed more than enough about my poor tankers, and had enough "sure kills" go the other way. Overall, this IS part of the simulation, not a bug.

Holien: "Moon's explanations are ways for you to deal with the sad fact that not everything in life is controllable."

And that's all they are. There is a fine line between outright bugs (problems in the game code), design flaws (problems with the overall concept), and "war is hell problems". I've seen a lot of suggestions on these boards in the past three years which - subconsciously - aim at making the game more "winnable" by declaring "bugs" (e.g. my infantry stinks, my zooks are stupid, my Sherman is an idiot), not realizing that this is exactly how it should be. It's a feature, not a bug - hmm, I should make this my sig line...

Concluding, please understand that I do not want to claim that CM is perfect (can't be said often enough). Selecting "C" in a given situation might be set a few points too low in the code, penetration might be a few points too low or too high, threat assesment (target selection) might be tilted a little in this or that direction... all of these might be valid points of dicussion, but at the same time these are all small details in an overall sound game concept, and hardly any one of them should cost you a game if your tactical approach is sound from the start on.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Moon, I have tried to duplicate your test results and have been unable to do so. I set up the tanks at the distance shown in your screen shots. I even gave the 105 the same ammo load. From the 2 different distances shown in the 2 screen shots, it appears the Mk IV was moving, so I tried tests with it moving and stationary. In every instance only HE was fired.

I think I know how you did it though. You mentioned you used two 105s in your test. I suspect the Mk IV was firing at the other 105, which was off to the side. This would have put the Mk IV at an oblique angle to the 105 shown in the pics. At that range, an oblique angle would make the Mk IV front turret impenetrable to 105 HE, which explains the HEAT round being used. I also assume the other 105, the one firing directly at the Mk IV and therefore able to penetrate the turret with HE, did not fire HEAT.

If these assumptions are correct, your test results do not contradict mine. In fact they support them. If my assumptions are incorrect, please supply more information about your test so I can try to duplicate it again.

No one is saying that the sky is falling or that this is a game breaker. But it is a legit issue. It took months of threads like this before BTS changed the tungsten use code, but they did change it. If this problem is still present in CM2 it will come up again and eventually it will get fixed. We'll just have to be patient.