Don't tell me that this is realistic

[Doug Beman]

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.

Um, so you've followed the procedure I outlined and came up with 2 distinct turns, each having 3 1st-round hits?

I eat nothing because of somebody's opinion.

DjB

[aka_tom_w]

I'm not sure if Mr.Smith is still with us but he has this to say about a year ago

you can find it here:

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

Stephen Smith

Member

Member # 567

posted June 20, 2001 10:54 AM

As a real-world comparison-

modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but

'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean

driving cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down

motion, nor driving very fast. I don't believe it would be possible to fire modern M1A1s while 'on the

move' in any but these very limited circumstances (i.e. relatively flat terrain, relatively low speed), for

two reasons 1) it would be hard to keep the cross hairs on the target, and 2) it would be hard for the

crew to keep themselves still enough to even look through the optics well enough to aim (the gunner

would be thrown around the inside of the vehicle too much). And unless 1940's technology was much

better than 1990's technology, I suspect the ability to fire on the move under any but very rare

circumstances, even with a highly trained crew and a gyrostabilizer, is grossly overrated.

And-

I just read a book on Kursk which quoted a german gunner as saying the ideal range for engagements

was about 800 meters. So what ranges should we expect in CM2? I would think about the same as in

CMBO. While the optics and penetration of main guns may have allowed extremely high ranges (2000,

3000 meters in incredibly rare, extreme cases), I suspect that due to real-world terrain, actual

engagements were probably conducted, 95% of the time, 0-1000 meters or so.

Steve

[CombatGeneral]

Ok guys, here is the deal. I have spent a great deal of time around military bases, was a marine myself. Paid for law school that way. Damn fine payment plans for college. All you kids reading this, go to school. Anyway, a modern M1A1 can fire around 3-5 rounds a minute depending on the crew. However, there are automated systems on updated tanks. The gun barrel automaticaly compensates for direction, elevation and distance. Distance is of course determined by a laser at a max range of either 3 or 5km, damn I cant remember. Anyway, once you fire the round the enemy tank is as good as dead. However, that is modern tank combat. In world war two, you had to estimate the range, and fire bracketing shots once you got the range. A trained tank crew could spend six or seven rounds at long distances just getting the range. Again, you cant hardly see an enemy tank at 800+ meters. The shots described by scipio are damn near impossible regardless of the tank crews training. In fact, im so angry about this whole mess, im going to eat dinner.

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

Ok guys, here is the deal. I have spent a great deal of time around military bases, was a marine myself.

CG was a Marine?

Ok, let me ask you a couple of questions for mine and the other forum jarhead's sake:(Any Marine would know this, so don't worry)

What are your last 4?

Which Training Battalion in Parris Island is the most renowned for harsher discipline?

How can you tell a Senior from the other DI's?

What happens on thursday nights in most USMC barracks? (Fridays in some).

Who's got the most Medals of Honor? Smedley or Lewis B.?

Who's ranked higher? A Gunner or a Gunny?

What's a Pizza Box medal? What is a FireWatch ribbon?

What is a Butterbar?

What is the proper Rifle Range signal for "No rounds hit target"? What is the nickname for that?

When you are doing target duty in the rilfe range, what is it called? (Hint: "You are pulling _____")

In running cadences, who always steals you girlfriend when you are away?

What are "Black Cadillacs"?

What is "**** on a Shingle"?

What is an 03?

A score of 11 out 14 or higher is required to pass this test.

Gyrene

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

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

Ok guys, here is the deal. I have spent a great deal of time around military bases, was a marine myself.

CG was a Marine?

Ok, let me ask you a couple of questions for mine and the other forum jarhead's sake:(Any Marine would know this, so don't worry)

What are your last 4?

Which Training Battalion in Parris Island is the most renowned for harsher discipline?

How can you tell a Senior from the other DI's?

What happens on thursday nights in most USMC barracks? (Fridays in some).

Who's got the most Medals of Honor? Smedley or Lewis B.?

Who's ranked higher? A Gunner or a Gunny?

What's a Pizza Box medal? What is a FireWatch ribbon?

What is a Butterbar?

What is the proper Rifle Range signal for "No rounds hit target"? What is the nickname for that?

When you are doing target duty in the rilfe range, what is it called? (Hint: "You are pulling _____")

In running cadences, who always steals you girlfriend when you are away?

What are "Black Cadillacs"?

What is "**** on a Shingle"?

What is an 03?

A score of 11 out 14 or higher is required to pass this test.

Gyrene</font>

[Gyrene]

They'll be posted.

Gyrene

[Redwolf]

Strange, last time he said something about his employment he was at Harvard Law School.

He didn't react my invitation to have lunch at Mary Chung at 464 Massachusetts Avenue, though

Edit: had the spoellinck wrong, talk about blowing a joke...

[ July 02, 2002, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[CombatGeneral]

You guys are funny. The hell if I know those answers. I tried out for the marines, perhaps I should have mentioned that, oops. Too damn lazy to make it. And its spelled Harvard. And there are no red wolves in nature damnit. Anyway guys, I know my stuff, military paid for me. You guys harrass a lot, so you can bite me. Yeah, that may not be a legal term, but oh well. Just try and test me on modern military weaponary. Ill bust your balls. Exuse me.

[Scipio]

Well, I guess now I must get really heretic .

I think Steve is wrong, or he makes at least a wrong approach to the problem. As I said above, the biggest difficulty is the range to the target. This is a known fact. Maybe Steve's results are correct, and maybe they are even historic. But the big error is: he assumes that the distance to the target is always known to the gunner. But this was in reality nearly never the case, especially not for moving tanks. Except the tanks (or even AT-guns) are operating from fixed fireposition, were the distances to some important landmarks were measured before the battle - in CM terms this can be compared with TRPs and on-map mortars. Once the mortar has moved, it can't target the TRP anymore.

Once a tank is on the move, all target parameters, ranges and angles are changing. And WWII tanks had no laser range finders. They had to use tables and relative simple optical equipment. Experience has surely helped, but only to some degree. It seem to me that a lot of people underestimate the range problem. And 'range finding' is just not modeled in CM. All ranges are - AFAIK - known. To the player - what is okay - but also to the gunners in the game. What is completly wrong.

[ July 02, 2002, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Goanna]

Or just lie.

Lying always works too. If you think washing out (or maybe even not making it through induction) is anything like being a real marine, bud, you have gone a long way toward proving yourself to be a pathelogical liar.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a marine in anyone's armed forces. But believe me, I know the difference, and I know you said you WERE above.

You owe all the marines everywhere an apology, and 50 fake Ooorahs! so they can laugh at you.

[Splinty]

So you know modern military hardware CG? How many sabot rounds can an M2/M3 Bradley carry in it's ready box? How much does one of those rounds weigh? What does the ISU do? Is there a laser range finder in a Bradley? I'll give you a hint: The gun in a Bradley is the same one that's in an LAV, since you said you were a Marine.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Goanna:

Or just lie.

Lying always works too. If you think washing out (or maybe even not making it through induction) is anything like being a real marine, bud, you have gone a long way toward proving yourself to be a pathelogical liar.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a marine in anyone's armed forces. But believe me, I know the difference, and I know you said you WERE above.

You owe all the marines everywhere an apology, and 50 fake Ooorahs! so they can laugh at you.

:confused: Are you in the wrong threat? I would prefer if you discuss your personal issues in an own threat. Thanks!

[ July 02, 2002, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

Ok guys, here is the deal. I have spent a great deal of time around military bases, was a marine myself.

Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

I tried out for the marines, perhaps I should have mentioned that, oops. Too damn lazy to make it.

Was that a plane I heard crashing, or just your credibility?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

CG was a Marine?

Ok, let me ask you a couple of questions for mine and the other forum jarhead's sake:(Any Marine would know this, so don't worry)

Well, Gyrene, since you made me an honorary Jarhead, this Canadian will give it a shot.

What are your last 4?

We use the last three - of our Social Insurance Number when I first joined, but now we get Service Numbers - we still use the last 3.

Who's ranked higher? A Gunner or a Gunny?

I will guess a Gunnery Sergeant.

What is a Butterbar?

Second Lieutenant. (Of course, rank among lieutenants is like virtue among whores - non-existent.)

What is the proper Rifle Range signal for "No rounds hit target"? What is the nickname for that?

Waving the pointer in front of the target. Nickname is Maggie's Drawers.

When you are doing target duty in the rilfe range, what is it called? (Hint: "You are pulling _____")

Would this be "the butts"?

In running cadences, who always steals you girlfriend when you are away?

During Vietnam, it was Jody - don't know who it is today.

What are "Black Cadillacs"?

We have them too! Combat boots.

What is "**** on a Shingle"?

In WW II, chipped beef on toast.

What is an 03?

Used to be a Springfield rifle.

A score of 11 out 14 or higher is required to pass this test.

Do I get to be an honorary Jarhead still? I didn't even google.

Gyrene[/QB]

[Captain Wacky]

Lol, my Grandpa was in town a few weeks ago bitching about **** on a shingle when he was at Pearl in WWII

[Col Deadmarsh]

I'm no grog and I know we're going for total realism here, but this is my opinion: If BTS is confused about what is realistic in this situation and has to error on one side, they should error on the side of tanks having to take more shots to hit other vehicles, especially while moving.

If nothing else, this will reward the better, more skilled player. A player who has skillfully moved into position to get the most effective shot while at the same time giving his opponent a poor shot at him, will have the best chance for success.

The opponent who has demonstrated sloppy play in the situation and being at a tactical disadvantage won't automatically spot, turn his turret 180 degrees, and hit the other guy while moving away from him. Even if I was this person, I would rather have my opponent be rewarded for his cunning and skill.

Toning down the spotting and hit probability for CMBB will accomplish this.

[Tero]

After many, many of these kind of debates I think these kind of occurances in the game are due to separate characteristics of the gun platform coming together.

The incredients are: inherent gun capabilities, charateristics of the ordance it fires, fast turret, stabilizer and the inherent lack of random deviation from the stats in the code that makes this kind of inconsistent consistency possible.

The "problem" is when the accuracy is rated the platform stability gets the lions share of attention in the calculation. (Then there are things which are not rated at all, like optics.)

The gun capabilities are in line with the historical facts I guess. Although I have some doubts about the reload times in stabilized turrets (ie when only the gun is stabilized, not the entire turret).

Ordnance characteristics, well.... hmmmmm... I find it hard to believe the 76mm Allied AP shots were THAT much more accurate than the 75mm German AP shots (when speaking about first shot hit accuracy). Or that the 75mm (or even 88mm, 105mm and 150mm) German HC shots were THAT much more accurate the 75mm (88mm, 105mm, 150mm) German AP shots.

Fast turret: that section of the race track has been well trampeled in previous occasions.

Stabilizer: that section of the race track has been well trampeled in previous occasions. Ceterum censeo: it would not hurt the historical accuracy to have them (like other intricate mechanical devices in the game) malfunction occasionally.

The inherent lack of random deviation from the stats in the code that makes this kind of inconsistent consistency possible: I think NOBODY is consistently THAT unlucky with their first shots as the German gunners are in the game. Recently I have had some incredible long range first shot kills while playing as Germans. The only thing is they have all been with recoilles guns, most notably 8cm PAW in a recent PBEM and 105/150 RCL in an ongoing tourney game. The only way I can explain this to myself is the German AP shots get a bum rap because of the platform gets a bum rap, be it a Stug, a tank or an AT gun.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

You guys are funny. The hell if I know those answers. I tried out for the marines, perhaps I should have mentioned that, oops. Too damn lazy to make it. And its spelled Harvard.

And "its spelled Harvard" is spelled "it's spelled Harvard". Having admitted you were 'too lazy' to actually be a Marine, does this mean that you were at Harvard as a Security Guard? Because I, frankly, am not buying the concept that you graduated with a degree in anything but lying your arse off.

Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

And there are no red wolves in nature damnit.

Wrong again, actually, proving that there is almost no sphere of human knowledge in which you aren't being shown up. The Red Wolf is a sub-species of the North American Gray Wolf. Had you said that none currently live in the wild, you could probably be considered correct. The current population of about 300 or so exist in zoos.

Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

Anyway guys, I know my stuff, military paid for me. You guys harrass a lot, so you can bite me. Yeah, that may not be a legal term, but oh well. Just try and test me on modern military weaponary. Ill bust your balls. Exuse me.

What type of uniforms were the 'military' that paid for you wearing? And how much did you get in any given transaction? Just curious.

Frankly, I've seen a display of writing skills from you that would discredit most middle school children in my state. I find it inconceivable that you even attended Harvard, let alone graduated from there with a degree in Law.

The ability to read a few books on modern weapons systems and then parrot back a few vaguely remembered half-facts doesn't make you an expert, either.

You're a sad little character with serious self-esteem issues, aren't you? Don't be afraid. We all like you, we really, really do! But you do know that it's wrong to lie and get angry when you're caught at it, don't you?

[Yaphank]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

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

Ok guys, here is the deal. I have spent a great deal of time around military bases, was a marine myself.

CG was a Marine?

Ok, let me ask you a couple of questions for mine and the other forum jarhead's sake:(Any Marine would know this, so don't worry)

What are your last 4?

-SSN

Which Training Battalion in Parris Island is the most renowned for harsher discipline?

-3rd, but we all know 2nd makes the best Marines!

How can you tell a Senior from the other DI's?

-Black belt

What happens on thursday nights in most USMC barracks? (Fridays in some).

-Field Day

Who's got the most Medals of Honor? Smedley or Lewis B.?

-Smedley Butler? I can't remember!

Who's ranked higher? A Gunner or a Gunny?

-A gunner is a warrent officer, gunny is a sgt.

What's a Pizza Box medal? What is a FireWatch

ribbon?

-Rifle Marksman, National Defence

What is a Butterbar?

-2nd Lt.

What is the proper Rifle Range signal for "No rounds hit target"? What is the nickname for

that?

-The Wave. It means you missed numbnutts!

When you are doing target duty in the rilfe range, what is it called? (Hint: "You are pulling _____")

-Butts

In running cadences, who always steals you girlfriend when you are away?

-Jody

What are "Black Cadillacs"?

-Boots

What is "**** on a Shingle"?

-???

What is an 03?

-Grunt

A score of 11 out 14 or higher is required to pass this test.

Gyrene</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Once a tank is on the move, all target parameters, ranges and angles are changing. And WWII tanks had no laser range finders. They had to use tables and relative simple optical equipment.

And battle sights. The trajectory of most tank gun projectiles was flat enough that a sight set at a standard range and aimed at the center of mass was likely to hit some part of an opposing tank over a wide range of distances. Getting a kill that way might be another matter, but at least you would be knocking on the door and that could well rattle the crew in the other tank into doing something foolish.

I think CG is well off in claiming that in most tank duels it took 6-7 rounds to get a hit. At least in the Western armies, any TC/gunner team that couldn't get on target with 2-4 rounds should probably get sent back to gunnery school. Getting a confirmed kill (on fire) though was another matter. The first couple of hits might not penetrate, or if penetrating might not do critical damage, or if doing critical damage might not give visible evidence of same at first. Therefore, the firing tank or AT gun would continue to slam rounds into it until it burned, unless there was an obviously more threatening target at hand. That, I suspect, is where the figure of seven rounds fired per kill (which I posted earlier) may have come from.

Michael

[Blackhorse]

This very issue of tanks being so accurate while on the move was brought up in this forum by a smart bloke back in 1999. THat thread is Here

I completely agree that tanks firing on the move are overly accurate. Most WWII tanks fired from the short halt. This was a practice still used by the M-60 series tankers of the 70's btw. It wasn't until the advent of reliable gyros and laser range finders that firing while traveling cross-country or anywhere on the move for that matter became SOP.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

was a marine myself.

Bulls**t! The hell you were a Marine, you sorry sack of sh*t! I doubt the Army would accept your sorry ass in its ranks. Square your sh*t away and stop lying

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Well, I guess now I must get really heretic .

I think Steve is wrong, or he makes at least a wrong approach to the problem. As I said above, the biggest difficulty is the range to the target. This is a known fact. Maybe Steve's results are correct, and maybe they are even historic. But the big error is: he assumes that the distance to the target is always known to the gunner. But this was in reality nearly never the case, especially not for moving tanks. Except the tanks (or even AT-guns) are operating from fixed fireposition, were the distances to some important landmarks were measured before the battle - in CM terms this can be compared with TRPs and on-map mortars. Once the mortar has moved, it can't target the TRP anymore.

Once a tank is on the move, all target parameters, ranges and angles are changing. And WWII tanks had no laser range finders. They had to use tables and relative simple optical equipment. Experience has surely helped, but only to some degree. It seem to me that a lot of people underestimate the range problem. And 'range finding' is just not modeled in CM. All ranges are - AFAIK - known. To the player - what is okay - but also to the gunners in the game. What is completly wrong.

Great Post!

Good points

"It seems to me that a lot of people underestimate the range problem. And 'range finding' is just not modeled in CM. All ranges are - AFAIK - known. To the player - what is okay - but also to the gunners in the game. What is completly wrong."

OK!

One thing that Steve and BFC seem to completely refuse to model is the impact of optics. IMHO I honestly believe the Germans had BETTER optics with respect to range finding. If the gunner can accurately determine the range before the first round is fired the liklyhood of a hit should be much higher.

So it follows that if two tanks are moving (the shooter moving fast) the range would be changing and the shot ought not to be very accurate at all.

NOW that said it has been pointed out the at ranges less than about 800 m if the gunner aimed at the central mass of the tank and did not accurately determine the range the deviation in the flight path, (a little bit up or down) would still likely result in a hit somewhere on the tank. HOWEVER with both tanks moving it would seem CMBO is OVERLY generous with the "to hit" accuracy gunnery model.

Steve of BFC has posted his thoughts on this siutation with regard to CMBO so lets hope there might some changes in CMBB.

I do hope they will review whatever hard data are available on this issue and modify the gunnery model for WWII East Front tanks firing on the move for CMBB! (Not to mention the impact of gunnery Optics and range finders)

-tom w

[ July 02, 2002, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

I tried out for the marines, perhaps I should have mentioned that, oops. Too damn lazy to make it.

Too lazy for the Marines? You'd never make it through one semester at Harvard. If you had any credibility, it is gone.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Scipio:

in CM terms this can be compared with TRPs and on-map mortars. Once the mortar has moved, it can't target the TRP anymore.

Is it just me or didn't it turn out in a fur ball not long ago almost all on-map ordnance get targeting benefits from TRP's, including tanks which have moved. Not exactly the same thing but still intimately related.

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

IMHO I honestly believe

the Germans had BETTER optics with respect to range finding.

The Finnish tankers who got their hands on both the captured T-34's and KV-1's and Stug-III's were quite specific about the superiority of the German optics over the Soviet optics.

And I think it is telling that the captured Soviet stuff was phased out service faster than the German stuff, eventhough spare part situation was much better for the Soviet stuff. The last Stug's and PAK-40's were phased out of service in the late 80's.

So it follows that if two tanks are moving (the shooter moving fast) the range would be changing and the shot ought not to be very accurate at all.

Agreed. It does depend on the range. But the flight path of the shell is not all the story. How can a gunner keep the gun aligned to the target when both the shooter and the target are moving in 3D over uneven grounds and even when the speed is relatively slow the combined speed is considerable and the tank is jolting over the bumps ? The deflection, both horizontal and vertical, required to keep the target in sights alone is hard. The bumps make it IMO impossible. Even with a stabilizer.

HOWEVER with both tanks moving it would seem CMBO is OVERLY generous with the "to hit" accuracy gunnery model.

Conversly: (and I think this makes it even worse) there are absolutely no benefits for firing from a static or an ambush position.

Steve of BFC has posted his thoughts on this siutation with regard to CMBO so lets hope there might some changes in CMBB.

I have seen (long ago) a statement by Steve in which he related the consistent good/bad lucky in making the shots is being looked into.

I do hope they will review whatever hard data are available on this issue and modify the gunnery model for WWII East Front tanks firing on the move for CMBB!

The people who say the Soviets did do it as a part of their SOP leave out the fact it was used as a shock effect and they never even expected to hit anything. And the photos I have see almost invariably show the T-34's crashing through high brushes or small woods while firing the guns.

(Not to mention the impact of gunnery Optics and range finders)

Agreed.

But I think the tune "Blue Moon of Kentucky keep on shining..." says it all as far as BTS is concerned.