I hope this is removed in CMBB

[Enoch]

Moon,

I am having a hard time visualizing this system in regards to how a cover arc works with a moving tank. I think it would be best to illustrate how this works with some screenshots from CMBB

[TSword]

Sven is correct with his question.

But i think it is almost impossible to implement an algorithm to do it right. Because it is situation dependent. (Because it can easily be exploited: a tank pops up in your flank, your turret rotates, flankthreat dissapears and blocking force tanks appear at your front neatly holing your weak side turret...)

There are more oddities with which you have to cope with in CMBO.

Still i'm convinced that there should be a command to direct a tank only to engage (rotate turret) priority targets and to define them as either inf or Tanks (of course also the current sheme still in place).

Another aspect which should be changed:

A tank does not strive to face an opponent frontally at 90 degree but instead "over the corner" (striking angle to frontal hullplate at around 30-40 degree and side plating at 60-50 degrees), one then also has to add the slope of the plates).-> Much improved protection

For instance, the Tigers or even the Sherman's front plates would be much harder to be penetrated by an opponent.

[Jwirry]

Since I have some experience with this I will try and give my two cents. You are talking about one tank and tanks very rarely fight by themselves. At the lowest they will fight as a pair, but usually as a platoon of four.

Each tank will be given an arc on the clock, like fighter planes, to cover. Their gunners will continuously scan this arc until contact is made and then the platoon will react accordingly.

I tried to put a wedge formation in the post but it didn't work, so I can't help you visualize this.

[ March 22, 2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Jwirry ]

[Jwirry]

I just realized my first post does not address the original post.

The tank that spots the enemy would remain oriented in that general direction because that is where his most dangerous opponent is. He could do this because his wingman would be covering the remainder of his territory.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Sven:

No it's not really a bug, but it's an error in the game engine.

What I mean is that tanks, when they can't actually see the enemy, always aim their turret forward in the driving direction. However, often, you, and the tank crew, know that there's an enemy tank around the corner. The tank SHOULD therefore keep it's turret aimed that way despite it not actually seeing the tank at that very moment. (so that it can fire immediately when turning the corner, instead of having to wait for the turret to turn around, and possibly get shot at first.)At least it should be possible for you to order it to, don't you agree?

Hi

In the game as it stands now you can sort of "fake" this by giving an "area Fire" order in the direction that you expect the other tank.

yes it is wasteful of your ammo (BUT you can say no to "use Main Weapon" then only the co-ax MG in the turret will fire) BUT your tank is only wasting HE and will fire off an AP round the minute another tank is spotted.

in the game now the area fire command is the only "work around" to deal with this situation.

It DOES work. A tank can drive forward and fire off to the side in the direction of your "area fire" command and as soon as a tank is spotted in the general vacinity of that area targeted it will acquire that tank and pop off an AP round.

AS for the new cover arc I know we have not seen or tested CMBB yet but it is possible some folks here, will be suggesting that the cover arc should NOT be relative to the tank but locked to the actual points on the MAP that were orinigally selected as defining the degrees of the cover arc so that as a tank turned it would still focus on that AREA of the MAP instead of the cover arc moving with the tank?

AS it stands now the cover arc will turn with the tank and the turret will not rotate or stay fixed as the tank turns as the cover arc is "relative to the tank"

Is this the way it "should be" realistically?

I think I would prefer to specify an area of the map to cover, not an arc relative to the position of the tank. In the current plan for cover arc for CMBB even with a cover arc established the turret will NOT rotate independant of the tank as the cover arc rotates with the tank when it turns or rotates, ( if I understand Moon correctly)

is this a good thing? is it historically realistic?

just wondering

your comments?

-tom w

[Moon]

Tom_w - the arc doesn't turn with the tank. Turning the tank will result in the hull turning, but the turret will remain facing in the direction of your arc. Only when you move the tank forward or backward will the arc move with it, but it will keep its orientation at all time. When you think about it, and of course when you see it in action , it makes a lot of sense that way.

[Jwirry]

The tanks will receive their initial orientation based upon the direction of travel. The arcs will remain relative to the tank, since the terrain will be continuously moving.

The change to relativity comes with contact, the platoon will conduct a contact drill. The spotting tank will focus in the area the enemy was/is located. The remainder of the platoon will orient in the general direction while still covering as much as they can.

However, at any time during the attack the platoon leader can designate terrain he feels is important and assign a tank or a team to cover that area until passed or deemed safe.

Hope that helps, I know it is hard to visualize without pictures.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Moon:

Tom_w - the arc doesn't turn with the tank. Turning the tank will result in the hull turning, but the turret will remain facing in the direction of your arc. Only when you move the tank forward or backward will the arc move with it, but it will keep its orientation at all time. When you think about it, and of course when you see it in action , it makes a lot of sense that way.

GREAT

that makes more sense than anything else I have read in this thread

thanks for the clarification, it now makes sense and that is the way I would think it should be.

sorry I misinterpretted your original post.

-tom w

[ March 22, 2002, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Jwirry]

Found a page with visual on what I was trying to explain formation

Sorry I didn't do it as elloquantly,sp, as Moon.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by TSword:

Another aspect which should be changed:

A tank does not strive to face an opponent frontally at 90 degree but instead "over the corner" (striking angle to frontal hullplate at around 30-40 degree and side plating at 60-50 degrees), one then also has to add the slope of the plates).-> Much improved protection

For instance, the Tigers or even the Sherman's front plates would be much harder to be penetrated by an opponent.

This actually works only for a few tanks. To make it worthwhile you need quite thick side armor in comparision to the front armor and the slope must be suitable.

For example, it works for Tiger 1 and the thick Churchills.

It doesn't work for the Panther since the thin side armor becomes vulnerable at too low an angle to make this tactics worthwhile.

It doesn't work on a Tiger 2 because the forward sides of the turret are not parallel to the sides, but bent to the inside. The angle on these parts becomes critical pretty soon if you are going onto an opponent angled.

[Bruno Weiss]

Dog gone, I missed this. The ole "all tanks did this all the time" patch. I remember it well. I think it originated with someone finding a dusty ole German training manual that said a tank orta do this or that, and in the end it was applied to all tanks all the time. Now I know what he was talking about in the lead in sentence. Yep, the hide/ambush is about how I've gotten around it, but that don't help ya ofcourse when moving.

[wbs]

From wodasini88's sig:

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

"1. Solid AP shell penetrates armor of tank.

2. Shell continues on its trajectory (possibly modified by the initial impact), ploughing through relatively soft crew members, equipment, etc. Bear in mind that it's also hot at this point (from converting all that kinetic energy into physical displacement of armor), so if it hits anything flammable, you're in trouble.

3. Shell hits something that it can't penetrate - probably the armor on the other side of the tank.

4. If the angles and energy are right, the shell may continue ricocheting - so go back to 2.

5. Phew! You're a crew member, you didn't get hit by the initial impact, or any spray of incandescent metal droplets from it, or any ricochets, you didn't lose your mind when your best mate Charlie next to you suddenly had an 88mm hole appear in his chest, and the shell didn't ignite any fires OR knock out any critical equipment along the way. You still have a functioning tank to fight with!

6. But you have to ask yourself just one question. Whatever just hit you can load another shell within, say, 10 seconds, and have a good chance of hitting you again. A VERY good chance if neither you nor it were moving. So, the question is... do you feel lucky?"

-PondScum

Interestingly enough, this real-life exact series of events was mentioned on a History Channel program about the Russian T-34 tank a couple of nights ago.

They were interviewing a Russian veteran who had been a gunner in a T-34 tank. In an interview, he described in detail how the tank commander spotted a Tiger tank, and they turned to engage it. Before they could fire, the Tiger fired at them. The AP shell penetrated the front armor and entered the crew compartment. The gunner stated that there was a "bang", a "roaring noise", and then he lost conciousness. When he awoke a minute later, the interior of the tank was filled with dust, but he could see sunlight coming into the tank through the bottom of the turret, because the turret had been knocked askew.

He was uninjured, but the Tank commander was dead and the other crewmen were badly injured. He looked outside the tank and could see German infantry moving in his direction, so he pulled the unconcious driver from his seat, and tried to restart the engine (it had stalled). The engine started, and he was able to drive the damaged tank away to a safe place, while under the small arms fire of the German infantry.

It's funny how closely wodasini88's sig (which is a quote from Pondscum, I believe), tracks with this real life interview.