Don't tell me that this is realistic

[Scipio]

3 Tankhunters (M10 or Hellcats) move over a hill top in open terrain, three PzIV drive fast on a road away from them. The distance is 800+ and fast rising.

One TD fires and kills the middle PzIV with the first shot at 835m. The leading PzIV turns it turret and fires on a TD, moving at full speed with the barrel at ~160° to the driving direction, fires and kills a TD at 875m with the first shot. The PzIV then leaves the road, spots still at full speed a Hellcat ~400m away in the opposite direction, turns the turret and kills it again with the first shot. That was three "1 in a Million" shots within 30 seconds, not to speak about the unrealistic accurate spotting.

I hope BTS make some major revisions on the gun accuracy and spotting in CM:BB.

[ July 01, 2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Gunners DID recieve instruction on engaging moving targets, Scipio...

[PawBroon]

And you do know that the only Nemesis of PzIVs are the 37 wielding Goonies.

Against a Hellcat, you were doomed from the start.

At least, someone had some luck with the PzIV this time...

[Yggdrasill]

I don't know if I would call those "1 in a million" shots, but the odds are low that you would get three shots on one turn, such as you described.

However, I don't think that you can call CM unrealistic on the basis of that single experience. It would be a different story if this sort of thing happened regularly. In that case, you can't chalk it up to the vagaries of war. But in my games at least, I have shot and missed numerous times, even from an immobile position.

I am curious. What were the experience levels of the crews involved?

[Pzman]

He said, "Don't tell me this is realistic." So don't tell him. I have heard of accounts like this, on the eastern front mind you.

[Determinant]

This sort of reminds me of that thing in school where they try and explain probability. Throwing five heads in a row doesn't make it more likely that you will then throw a tail - the coin has no memory.

Or something. Geography was more my thing - all those pretty maps.

Still, you should feel privileged to have witnessed such a consummate display of gunnery.

[xerxes]

Realistic? Any single particular incident isn't enough to establish realism.

But, from what many people have posted on how bad the PzIVs are, I think your experience was one of those extremely rare occurances. If your experience was the norm everyone would buy PzIVs and then be accused of being "gamey"!

[Scipio]

Hey, folks, seriously...

Modern battle tanks can do this. But they have a computerized, mostly automated fire guiding system that makes up to 30% of the costs for the whole tank.

The German crews were Veteran, the Allied AFAIK Regular, maybe Veteran (it's a PBEM). I play often pure tank battles, and be sure, this is not the first time I see this, and it is not even rare. Ever driven offroad in a tank? The whole thing shakes and rattles. You have luck if you don't break your bones.

Maybe you once try to hit something with a mounted machine gun from a fast driving car offroad on a traffic sign 150m away.

[MajorTaktik]

Since it was against me, I must jump in

I have to agree completely with what Scipio says based on my experience. Those shots were ridiculous. And it happens A LOT in my experience, so I can't just chalk it up to fog of war or vagaries or whatever you want to call it. God, forbid, but yes, CM must change this aspect of tank combat because it is flawed. Maybe because I play lots and lots of armor battles and pure tank against tank battles, so I see these insane shots quite often.

I am sure it happened in WWII, but definately not with the frequency I see in CM. I am sure some people will have accounts where SGT Fritz made this shot against this T34 and so on, but I have read a lot too, and I have not seen these instances. On the contrary, almost everthing I read about WWII tank combat stressed dont bother wasting ammo trying to hit something while moving.

As a comparison, if anyone plays Panzer Elite, try hitting while moving fast. Not possible. PE is rough around the edges but it is a nice little tank sim and replicates tank combat well. The shots made in CM by moving targets would be impossible in PE. Also, if you happen to play Steel Beasts, try the same type of shots. Even with LRF and Stabilization, and all the bells and whistles, it is hard to do. I understand CM is not a tank sim, but moving while firing accuracy is within their power to fix, just as undermodeld MGs are.

Spotting is another issure that must be fixed. Tanks pick up other tanks at extreme ranges too easily, especially when the acquiring tank is moving.

That said, I now must suspect Scipio's MKIV was really a disguised M1A2 SEP. Nice shooting Pete!

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

-Craig

[Redwolf]

So where it M10 or M18? The fast versus very slow turret makes a huge difference in CMBO.

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Scipio:

3 Tankhunters (M10 or Hellcats) move over a hill top in open terrain, three PzIV drive fast on a road away from them. The distance is 800+ and fast rising.

One TD fires and kills the middle PzIV with the first shot at 835m. The leading PzIV turns it turret and fires on a TD, moving at full speed with the barrel at ~160° to the driving direction, fires and kills a TD at 875m with the first shot. The PzIV then leaves the road, spots still at full speed a Hellcat ~400m away in the opposite direction, turns the turret and kills it again with the first shot. That was three "1 in a Million" shots within 30 seconds, not to speak about the unrealistic accurate spotting.

I hope BTS make some major revisions on the gun accuracy and spotting in CM:BB.

Were the US TD moving when they fired? If not, the first shot is nowhere near 1 in a million, merely a good shot. The third shot, at 400m is getting pretty close. Hitting it whilst moving is pretty good. The middle shot is very good. However, for every experience like this, you will find loads of 'my tank missed 3 times at 200m' type complaints. I think you are seeing the superior gunnery of veteran crews. Try playing with regular or green - that will cut your hits down.

BTW why do you think the spotting was unrealistic? Was the tank buttoned? in which case it is unusual, but if unbuttoned, whats the issue? Don't forget that, having said 'Gunner traverse left, Enemy TD 800m 5 o'clock on ridge', the commander is back to searching and looking elsewhere. The next bit is 'Driver - right turn, full speed'. Followed by 'Oh **** - gunnner traverse right - Hellcat 400m, now would be good!'

Even buttoned, its not impossible. If he'd been engaging at 3 targets at 400m and switched to the 800m target then you could complain!

[ July 01, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Sailor Malan ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Sailor Malan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio:

3 Tankhunters (M10 or Hellcats) move over a hill top in open terrain, three PzIV drive fast on a road away from them. The distance is 800+ and fast rising.

One TD fires and kills the middle PzIV with the first shot at 835m. The leading PzIV turns it turret and fires on a TD, moving at full speed with the barrel at ~160° to the driving direction, fires and kills a TD at 875m with the first shot. The PzIV then leaves the road, spots still at full speed a Hellcat ~400m away in the opposite direction, turns the turret and kills it again with the first shot. That was three "1 in a Million" shots within 30 seconds, not to speak about the unrealistic accurate spotting.

I hope BTS make some major revisions on the gun accuracy and spotting in CM:BB.

Were the US TD moving when they fired? If not, the first shot is nowhere near 1 in a million, merely a good shot. The third shot, at 400m is getting pretty close. Hitting it whilst moving is pretty good. The middle shot is very good. However, for every experience like this, you will find loads of 'my tank missed 3 times at 200m' type complaints. I think you are seeing the superior gunnery of veteran crews. Try playing with regular or green - that will cut your hits down.

BTW why do you think the spotting was unrealistic? Was the tank buttoned? in which case it is unusual, but if unbuttoned, whats the issue? Don't forget that, having said 'Gunner traverse left, Enemy TD 800m 5 o'clock on ridge', the commander is back to searching and looking elsewhere. The next bit is 'Driver - right turn, full speed'. Followed by 'Oh **** - gunnner traverse right - Hellcat 400m, now would be good!'

Even buttoned, its not impossible. If he'd been engaging at 3 targets at 400m and switched to the 800m target then you could complain!</font>

[Austrian Strategist]

'To Hit' probabilities seem to be on the high side in CMBO, I half way agree with Scipio here.

[MajorTaktik]

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

BTW why do you think the spotting was unrealistic? Was the tank buttoned? in which case it is unusual, but if unbuttoned, whats the issue? Don't forget that, having said 'Gunner traverse left, Enemy TD 800m 5 o'clock on ridge', the commander is back to searching and looking elsewhere. The next bit is 'Driver - right turn, full speed'. Followed by 'Oh **** - gunnner traverse right - Hellcat 400m, now would be good!'

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

Sailor Malan,

Have you ever played Panzer Elite? Based on your example, I would doubt it, because it is impossible to be riding UNBOTTONED in your tank at top speed in PE and spot a target 800+ meters away. Going to zoom with binocs, makes it even more impossible (can something be more impossible?) . Then telling your gunner to traverse while on the move, lay sights on said 800 meter target, acquire, and lay a perfect 1 shot kill in on it is asking the impossible. I use PE here as a comparison because I think it provides for an accurate model what it would be like in a WWII tank.

Since it is my guess that none of us were tankers in WWII (excluding past-lives), try and picture a similar example in real-life. Get in an SUV, get up to about 20 MPH, have some one tell you "pick out that car 800 meters away to your left (imagine 8 football fields in line for a good "feel" what it would be like), through this rifle sight and in a no less than 5 seconds, I want a one shot hit!". Of course, add intervening terrain and such to the mix while you try to spot it and the stress of combat.

I think this hypothetical shot would be hard to pull off.

Again, it is not this one instance that Scipio mentions. I often see these crazy shots. Because we miss 200 meter shots at broadside stationary tanks does not logically follow that we should thus be able to make impossible shots as compensation.

Craig

[Visom]

Have to agree with Scipio. Accuracy while moving is to high. Hitting something 400 meters away while moving at full speed in terrain is laughable. It truly is a one in a million shot.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by redwolf:

So where it M10 or M18? The fast versus very slow turret makes a huge difference in CMBO.

Why? I don't think that turret speed helps to keep your target in the aiming device. It only helps to get the barrel quick into the raw direction of your target. Beside that, the difficulty is not the side movement, it is the changing distance. To estimate the distance to the target is the biggest difficulty - and with WWII equipment it is really not much more then "estimate". That's why usually already several shots where necessary to hit a stationary target. I don't know the English word, in German it is called 'gabeln'. Even well experienced crews are not able to hit with one shot on an unknown distance. Now try this with a fast changing distance to the target!

The same of course when the shooting tank is moving + that the gunner is sitting in a ratteling and shaking tank and have biggest difficulties just to hold the target in the target optics!!!

[ July 01, 2002, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Michael Emrys]

This is a subject that has come up before. It is a well-known fact that BTS was too optimistic in modeling hit pobabilities from moving AFVs. I think in the end even Charles was convinced. Unfortunately, that was after serious work on CM:BB had begun and the "No more patches!" dictum came down.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

[qb]So where it M10 or M18? The fast versus very slow turret makes a huge difference in CMBO.

Why?

</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Scipio:

That's why usually already several shots where necessary to hit a stationary target.

S&T magazine once carried the factoid that during WW II it required on average seven shots to score a kill. I don't recall that the statement was qualified in any way, so I don't know if that was meant to be an average of all nations over the course of the whole war or something else. It is however a thought-provoking item.

Michael

[Scipio]

Redwolf I don't disagree to your argument about the turret speed in CM. I have not proved it, but I assume you are right.

But anyway, I don't think that this has a big influence in reality, cause the side movement at a range of 800m is relative easy to track, even with a slower turret.

So I guess that's another point where the CM model is at least questionable.

Sailor: About the spotting. Even when you know the raw direction of a target, than you will need some time to really spot it, not to speak about the difficulty to get it in your target optic with it's much smaller view. Try to show someone a bird on a tree 20 meters away - with some luck he will see it before it flys away. Try the same when the other one must look through a binocular! And BTW, with a buttoned tank it is impossible. A buttoned tank is nearly 80% blind - already on close distance.

[Doug Beman]

Originally posted by MajorTaktik:

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

BTW why do you think the spotting was unrealistic? Was the tank buttoned? in which case it is unusual, but if unbuttoned, whats the issue? Don't forget that, having said 'Gunner traverse left, Enemy TD 800m 5 o'clock on ridge', the commander is back to searching and looking elsewhere. The next bit is 'Driver - right turn, full speed'. Followed by 'Oh **** - gunnner traverse right - Hellcat 400m, now would be good!'

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

Sailor Malan,

Have you ever played Panzer Elite? Based on your example, I would doubt it, because it is impossible to be riding UNBOTTONED in your tank at top speed in PE and spot a target 800+ meters away. Going to zoom with binocs, makes it even more impossible (can something be more impossible?) .(remainder snipped)

Craig

I think it's a bad idea to use one game (which, itself, has its own host of abstractions, shortcuts and cut-corners) as a benchmark against which to measure the reality of other games.\

Here's my suggestion: if you still have the PBEM file (I save all files until the game is complete, just in case) re-run the turn, using identical orders (basically, find the 2nd orders input from the turn in question, load that, hit GO, watch the movie, repeat process)

If this outcome happens twice in a row, I'll eat my hat.

DjB

[endit]

Doug, better get the mustard out. I agree that moving tanks are way to accurate. One in the bush should get 4 or 5 shots off before it is spotted by a moving tank.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by endit:

Doug, better get the mustard out. I agree that moving tanks are way to accurate. One in the bush should get 4 or 5 shots off before it is spotted by a moving tank.

Why do you throw the problems of hitting and spotting into the same basket?

[ July 01, 2002, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Pak40]

Here's a good idea:

Since this was a PBEM game, reload the turn and recompute it. Do this about 50 times. See if you even once get the same results.

Better yet, give the turn to me and I'll run it a few times. I'll need your passwords also.

[ July 01, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[aka_tom_w]

Steve says this in this old thread I started about a year ago on this very subject:

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted July 25, 2001 04:02 PM

Hi all,

Well, I decided to do some tests instead of rellying upon people's strong, but relatively unsupported,

opinions. I conducted a simple test to at least see some statistical relationship between various

different aspects of gunnery using Halt and Fast.

I used 5 Regular Hellcats vs. 5 Regular Panthers. The choice was made because, supposedly, the

Hellcat has the biggest "fire on the move" bonus of all vehicles in the game since it is both fast and

has the gyro installed (even though, for the 100th time, the gyro only adds a tiny bonus). The

Panther was chosen because it can stand up to Hellcat fire, to some degree, but is also not overly

large like a King Tiger or Jagdtiger. The test was conducted at three ranges (roughly 250m, 1000m,

and 2000m) in perfect conditions (flat, uniform terrain in clear weather) against stationary, non

armed targets. All Hellcats started out in a dug out so they would aquire targets only after they had

acheived "full speed". Sharpshooters were positioned to ensure enemy tanks were spotted from the

get-go.

For Fast tests I took a batch of 5 Hellcats from one range group, plotted their movement orders,

and plotted Fast moves using Group Move towards the right most extreme edge of the map. This

allowed for turret rotation and also minimized range reduction as the movement was more lateral

than forward. I repeated this test five times. For Hunt tests I did the same thing, except I ploted the

Hellcats straight forward.

The results were quite interesting, and (IMHO) run contrary to the assumptions that some have

made here. Some basic findings:

Short Range - Hunt tanks were 7 times more likely to acheive a 1st shot hit, 3 times more likely to

hit over all. Highest % chance of hitting while moving was 1 in 3 (33%), highest for Hunt tanks was

over 9 in 10 (93%). Lowest % chance of hitting for Fast (13%), which was five times lower than

Hunt (64%).

Medium Range - Hunt tanks were almost 15 times more likely to score a hit than one moving Fast.

No Fast Hellcat scored a first shot hit, while first shot hits for Hunt tanks were about 1 in 5. TacAI

was not as likely to have Fast moving tanks fire. In fact, generally one tank each test did not fire at

all.

Long Range - TacAI found that 2500m was not an effective range to engage, so no Hellcats fired at

all, however the Hunt ones did tend to stop and await further orders.

What conclusions can we make from this? That anybody who thinks that Fast yields the same, or

even better, results as firing from a halted position should take another look at their tactics. I found

nothing in this test, or in 2 years of use of the game, to suggest that firing on the move is

unrealistically easy to hit.

Now, if someone wants to duplicate this situation using stationary Allied tanks and on the move

German ones, or to swap in Move instead of Hunt, fine. I personally expect the numbers for German

tanks to be BETTER than the Hellcats simply because the German guns are more accurate. But I

don't have time to do another set of tests. Heck, I didn't have time to do this set either

Steve

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

the thread is TEN pages long and it is just about the same as this current thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019743

more here:

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted July 25, 2001 11:50 PM

Rother,

I agree that doing anything while moving is a problem compared to being stopped. No questioning

that. But tanks *DID* fire on the move in WWII. This is a fact that would be rather hard to dispute.

What the question should be is what degree of accuracy can be expected from a well trained crew, in

optimal conditions, at point blank range against a stationary (and rather large) target. Unfortunately,

to the best of my knowledge there is no such figures for us to tap into, so it is guess work.

Do we have it right? I honestly don't know. But if the best arguments against the way it works in CM

now is to say that tanks didn't fire on the move or that CM doesn't penalize moving tanks are not

very impressive.

Tom,

quote:

The "strong, but relatively unsupported, opinions" reference sounded like it may have been

directed at some of my more highly opinionated posts.

Yes and no. You were not the only one to go out on the edge of a limb without checking to see if it

would support your weight first

My tests were designed to first and foremost get rid of the unsupported opinions I have seen in this

thread. One person even said he doesn't use Hunt because Fast is just as good. Now, do you think

that is a good and well reasoned evaulation of the way the game really works as opposed to how it is

perceived to work? I don't, so that is why I did the tests.

quote:

I suspect that the posts from real life modern day tank gunners who state the today's

modern tanks would only attempt to fire on the move while traveling on a straight flat road

at a about 15 mph, directly toward the target calls into question the notion that Allied

Hellcat crews attempted to fire their main weapon (with a 33% accuracy rating at 250 m)

while moving at top speed across open terrain.

Actually Tom, it is 23% accuracy vs. 76%. Or if you want to just select a single number out of the 5

tests, might I sugest the low end of 13% instead of the high end 33%? Even the worst "luck" while

stationary was twice the best luck of the Fast vehicle. The gap between wrost and best was 13% to

93%. Quite a huge difference. If you were in a tank and wanted to score a kill before the enemy did,

which firing option would you employ?

I understand and respect the insights that contemporary AFV crews have brought forward here, but

since the history books and the veterans who fought in them talk about firing on the move... I got to

side with the historical stuff and not personal conjecture. As someone said earlier, in ideal

circumstances you will, at some point, get the cross hairs on the target (at short range at least). The

German's experiments with autmatic firing once the cross hairs met the target show that this concept

is not imaginary.

I personally don't think a seven fold reduction in the chance of a first hit (which would be CRITICAL at

short range) and a three fold decrease for a hit makes firing on the move at close range a desirable

choice. At normal engagement ranges the 15 fold accuracy advantage for a halted tank makes firing on

the move, which had a mere 2% chance of hitting, shows that firing on the move at that range is

almost a sure miss.

So... bottom line here...

The rather strong and unsubstantiated claims of firing on the move modeling flaws don't hold much

water when the issue is actually looked at. If someone wants to debate the chance of hitting while on

the move at point blank range, that is fine. As I said, we don't have any hard numbers to draw upon

so we might have it wrong. But we are going to need to see some sort of tangiable argument laid out

instead of "they should just miss or not fire at all" stuff. That way of arguing for change doesn't

impress us

Steve

from:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019743;p=3

more:

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted July 26, 2001 04:37 PM

Hey Tom,

We all make mistakes. The important thing is to understand that and look beyond them. Now that

you (and others who share your opinions) have seen a fairly factually based counter discussion,

what say you?

In my opinion these are the points, counter points brought up in this (and another) thread.

1. Firing on the move using FAST does not offer much of a penalty - my tests clearly show that even

at point blank range this is not true. At longer ranges it is night and day different compared to firing

while halted.

2. Tanks should not be able to fire on the move - historical accounts beg to differ. In fact, especially

with the Soviets, this was SOP for armored vehicles on the advance.

3. Firing on the move was very difficult - yup, which is exactly what the stats show. But it doesn't

mean it wasn't done simply because it was difficult.

4. AFVs should not be able to fire while going at top speed - again, there is no basis for this. In any

case, Fast does not mean the vehicle actually acheives its top rated speed. Generally the speed is

actually only 10-20mph over perfect open ground conditions.

5. Gyros add a huge advantage to a tank which has one - not true. At most it adds a couple of %

points to the chance of hitting, but since firing on the move is already rather poor, it doesn't result

in a massive difference between a non-gyroed vehicle.

6. Do moving vehicles get an accuracy penalty due to the impossibility of bracketing? - you bet. Each

shot fired is treated like a "1st round" since it is highly unlikely that the TC is going to spot shotfall

or be able to quickly calculate aiming corrections while bouncing around in the turret.

Uh... did I miss anything?

Steve

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019743;p=4

there is plenty to read here if you really want the opinion of BFC and Steve on this particular issue...

-tom w