Don't tell me that this is realistic

[Jack Carr]

Sparky Rat.....Are you joking!

It's just a game....No kidding!

If its just a game then why bother?

Why bother having a discussion forum?

Don't post and run. Kinda makes it sound like you're whining.

People are discussing their experiences with the game. That's what the forum is for.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Sparky Rat:

although ive onlr been able to suffer thouirhg half of the posts it felt i must get my 2 cents worth in.

this whole thread reeks of "whaaa, my tanks got killed , whaaaaaaaaa!"

there is 1 and only 1 point; ITS A GAME. its not real life and it never will be real life there is no possible way it could ever totally simulate reality because there is no possible way to take into acocunt all the possiblities that real life can. AND when you get right down to the most basic parts, its still just a game.

cordialy yours,

Sparky

PS, dont bother replying to me because i will more than likely not be returning to this thread, or for the same reason, go ahead and flame.

This is completly wrong. No one is whining because he lost a tank - the tank that scored the two hits on the move was MY tank.

[Scipio]

Hear hear

Thanks to the availability of a wealth of new scientific and gun range testing data, the ballistics and penetration calculations are far more advanced than ever before. One of many new elements is the possibilty of partial penetrations

Taken from the one of the latest CM:BB screenshots.

[Tellu]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

About the optics again.

Been reading a book of finnish AT teams. There was a mention of optics between finnish and german 37mm AT guns. The difference being that the finnish version had open sights (for economic reasons) vs german guns proper optics.

It was assumed the german guns would do a lot better in combat, but in real life that was not found to be the case. Actually the only RL difference in performance was that the open sights were better on low light conditions.

Now, the situation was not the most favourable for optics superiority, there wouldn't be any firing at 500+ meters and so on. Probably the optics would have improved the gunnery at longer ranges, like 1000+ meters. But I actually have come to doubt there'd be a big difference at sub 1000 meter distances.

And one reason here is the zoom of these sights. Or lack of any. These sights had miserably small FOV and zoom. They were usuless in longer ranges. The commander had to spot with binocs for the gunner because you couldnt see the hits thorugh the sights at longer ranges.

So I fully believe plain sight would have been better in this case but it should not be compared to tank maingun sights which had decent zooms. Pak 35/36 sight while basicly same, only smaller, than used in panzers, was totally inadequate compared to tank sights.

[Tellu]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

Gun accuracy is frustrating in CMBO.

Many times I have had a friendly tank/tank destroyer waiting in ambush for an enemy vehicle to roll into its line of fire only to miss 3 to 5 times and then get whacked with the first shot by the enemy tank. These engagements are usually within 200 meters.

The other day I had a StugIII waiting in ambush behind a building and an M7 Priest moved right into its killing lane. This Priest is a gonner I thought, as I watched the Stug miss 3 times as the Priest turned its chasis and smoked the StugIII. All at 150 meters and flat terrain! The StugIII was not distracted by other enemy units, there were no other enemy units around.

I just laughed and shut the game off.

I can totally relate to that!

No terrain is totally level and even. No field, no park and no road. Every terrain has some minor irregularities in it. And when vehicles travel over them they bounce. And when vehicle bounces its contest will bounce. In tanks those contents are the crew. For crew to be able to fire their weapons effectively against enemy tanks they need to first of all spot the enemy. Then they need to aling the gun to the enemy and then they must aim and fire when the gun is aimed.

Try this; take a bucket cut a 10cm wide and 2cm high vision port in it and put it in your head. Have another person drive bike for you and sit behind him with bucket in your head. Take BB gun with you holding it in one hand and taking support with the other hand. Now drive around yard or some field and try to hit something with that BB gun.

And there is a WW2 tank battle simulator for you.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pacestick:

I am amazed that ww2 tanks could hit anything except at point blank range on the move and feel that any firing on the move was more for the morale of the crews than in the belief they would actually hit anything.

It may have been intended to shake the morale of the enemy more than anything else. I recall Rommel mentioning in his diaries that during the attack on France in 1940 he instructed his tank crews to fire left and right as they went through the French lines, not in the expectation that they would actually hit anything but to drive home to the Poilus that the enemy had arrived in their rear in considerable force and were raising hell back there. This spread alarm through their ranks and made rounding them up much easier. Obviously this tactic would enjoy less success against the better trained and disciplined soldiers found in more experienced armies.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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

I am amazed that ww2 tanks could hit anything except at point blank range on the move and feel that any firing on the move was more for the morale of the crews than in the belief they would actually hit anything.

It may have been intended to shake the morale of the enemy more than anything else. I recall Rommel mentioning in his diaries that during the attack on France in 1940 he instructed his tank crews to fire left and right as they went through the French lines, not in the expectation that they would actually hit anything but to drive home to the Poilus that the enemy had arrived in their rear in considerable force and were raising hell back there. This spread alarm through their ranks and made rounding them up much easier. Obviously this tactic would enjoy less success against the better trained and disciplined soldiers found in more experienced armies.

Michael</font>

[dieseltaylor]

As in all things **** happens - the first TigerI captured was disabled by a shot being wedged in the turret ring. Modelling real life has to allow for extreme luck. Tank ace Bormann "With the TigerII I knocked out a Stalin from the side at 1700 meters with its first round, GLUCKS TREFFER[lucky hit]!!"

One thing through this thread is the presumption that optics are crucial- dimly remembering that

[or more likely being dim and remembering] one of the German tank aces gave as a reason for his success his gunners ability to snap fire.

I therefore turned to Tiger Tanks by Michael Green [Motorbooks International], the only book to hand, which of course did not metion it. However - of interest

a] Tiger standing instructions were that the unbuttoned tank commanders range estimation was most likely to be accurate as he had stereoscopic vision [regardless of the fine optics available!]

From the TigerI Handbook " The distance can only be properly estimated by the driver and commander, because they can see the target unhindered by the naked eye. It is worse through the telescopic sights, first because the telescope sight magnifies everything by a factor of 2.5 and second because you cannot estimate that well with a single eye."

I will now digress slightly to how good the human eye is in the Mark1 eyeball mode. As I sit here I can see large trucks on the other side of the Severn Estuary moving along a road which has to be at least seven miles miles away. The human eye is very good at detecting motion and if a TD crawls across a ridge line the chances of being spotted are very high at 800 metres.

In relation to Scipio's post the commander makes a range estimation and because he is shooting uphill the chances of a hit would be great. If the gunner has a shot in the barrel and already has the gun ranged for a likely target range it is a matter of swinging the barrel --- but very lucky all the same [i recall the Ace's gunner always had the gun aligned to fire at either 500 or 800 metres and was so experienced that by simplying looking at the target he would know the distance make the small adjustment required and fire]

b]"According to gunnery tests by the British on captured TigerI ....

"A five round grouping of 16" by 18" was obtained at a range of 1200yards" [.5metre square at 1000metres] ..... " five rounds were fired at targets moving at 15 miles per hour and, although smoke obscured observation by the gunner,three hits were scored after directions were given by the commander. Normal rates of fire were estimated to be 5 to 8 rounds per minute."

Frightening stuff for accuracy

c] TigerI turret turning time at highest speed 19 seconds for 360 - Sherman 10 secs. Obviously the MarkIV beats the Tiger.

I do wonder that in the fast move whether tank commanders are just "intepreting" orders by slamming on the brakes taking the shot before continuing the route. Also whether the notion of fast is making us assume that the tank is at maximum rated speed. Lets face it acceleration is hardly going to be electric and certainly we know that the top speed changes dramatically depending on terrain and whether the tank is turning around obstacles.

Now if I have the time I will carry out 0-20 acceleration tests LOL