Tank Battle Observation and Questions

[rogue187]

Ah, as I get more into the game the more questions that I think about. I loaded up Bad Moon Rising figuring that it would be a good way to learn how to use tanks. First time I tried it, I tried to keep the tanks moving at Fast and close with the T-90s. Figured that firing on the move might keep them alive...it didn't work out so well. Of my 14 tanks I only had 6 viable by the time that I killed off the first wave. Then I was suspecting a second wave and was surprised by the way they entered the map resulting in the loss of 3 more tanks. My poor tanks had the arriving tanks to their back. I called it after that.

Did some research on wikipedia and placed my Abrams at about 2000m from the Blue touch and divided them up into two groups. I found this to be much more successful. Even though I did not move the tanks like I intended for manuever combat, their positions did work out and I killed all but 3 T-90s then the AI quit.

First Observation: M1A1 tanks can really take a lot of frontal damage. I saw one take at least 7 hits in total on the front and it just had his equipment break as a result. Even then the tank could still fight. Only lost one Abrams in the battle and the crew was ok even though the tank burned.

Question: How can you tell what you are hitting on the enemy tank? Since the damage model dosen't show ERA missing, how can you tell if you are making it go off or not?

Question: In modren combat is firing on the move the preferred method to engage enemy tanks or is stationary firing still the best way?

[Smaragdadler]

The (usualy) 'best' way of engaging an enemy tank with a tank (meaning highest probability to hit the enemy while having the lowest probability to get hit by the enemy) is from a standing hidden (hull down) position with a predefined area (target arc) where the (in-moving) enemy is expected to appear. If you see first - you kill first (post modern blue on red). If you move, your chances of 'first see' go down and you will be seen earlier. That's the gag about 'overwatch' (-> hint).

If your 'stabilisation equipment' (in CMSF: Damage panel -> '+Targeting' [?]) is gone, 'you' have to move the gun of your tank by hand crankle like in ww2. To fire on the move would then be a waste of time...

[Sivodsi]

is firing on the move the preferred method to engage enemy tanks or is stationary firing still the best way?

Not sure about in RL, but in this game the stationary side has a decisive advantage spotting and getting off the first round vs a tank that is being moved 'shoot and scoot' style into LOS/F. Is this fair or not? I don't know, but you have to be aware of it if your opponent beats you to high ground.

Spoiler alert for Bad Moon Rising

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

This spoiler naturally follows from the factoid above.

From tests that I've done on this scenario, the red side is unbeatable if they get all of their tanks onto that first subtle rise in the ground. Then they have LOS to any Abrams that pops up as well as an advantage in sheer number of guns.

If any Blue player can find a way of beating this tactic I'd like to see it.

[stikkypixie]

Question: How can you tell what you are hitting on the enemy tank? Since the damage model dosen't show ERA missing, how can you tell if you are making it go off or not?

Actually missing ERA blocks are shown in the game. But apparently the T90 uses another kind that doesn't blow up immediately or something.

Here is shot of some missing blocks:

[Apocal]

You have to remember that the ranges in-game are basically eyeball to eyeball for tanks.

The thing about the T-series tanks is that the absolute coverage of the ERA is something like 60% of the tank, leaving plenty that isn't protected. And the ERA blocks do get blown off if they are hit.

[rogue187]

Ok, wow that is some subtle changes to show that the ERA is blown. I am not sure if I would spot that in game or not.

Sidvosi, for Bad Moon Rising, I am not sure if I took the elevated point or not. I basiclly moved my tanks into the middle of the map and stopped them there. I had one group near the road (6 tanks) and my second group closer to the left edge/middle (8 tanks) from the Blue perspective. I only lost one tank doing this. While not every tank engaged, the angle was just enough that if one tank from each group saw the same T-90, it was fired upon from two different angles. This actually happened quite a few times.

Question: When my tanks took fire I would notice that the M4 icons in the crew would go away. I was not until I went to bed to think to look at the crew icons to see how they are doing. Still, I have used the M4 icons to indicate how many people are alive and well, was I wrong in doing this? When the Cmdr, loader, gunner M4 icons go away but the tank is still active and firing, does this mean that their weapons are hit?

[Clevinger]

The thing about the T-series tanks is that the absolute coverage of the ERA is something like 60% of the tank, leaving plenty that isn't protected. And the ERA blocks do get blown off if they are hit.

Apparently this is correct only for first generation ERA, like on T-55MV, T-62MV, T-72M1V... But the bricks of modern Kontakt-5 doesn't blow off when they are hit . I tried that with "Hasrabit" campaign, with hull down TURMS-Ts and they took quite a few hits, but the bricks were still there.

[Alan8325]

Question: When my tanks took fire I would notice that the M4 icons in the crew would go away. I was not until I went to bed to think to look at the crew icons to see how they are doing. Still, I have used the M4 icons to indicate how many people are alive and well, was I wrong in doing this? When the Cmdr, loader, gunner M4 icons go away but the tank is still active and firing, does this mean that their weapons are hit?

When the M4 icon of a crew member disappears it means that he is currently operating one of the vehicle weapons. You can see which one he is operating by mousing over the field where the M4 icon used to be and it will show the name of the weapon, for example "M2HB."

[akd]

When the M4 icon of a crew member disappears it means that he is currently operating one of the vehicle weapons. You can see which one he is operating by mousing over the field where the M4 icon used to be and it will show the name of the weapon, for example "M2HB."

And a little nudge to BFC: it would be really great if an icon for the weapon currently in use appeared in place of the sidearm icon for crew rather than the field going blank and depriving the player of information, just as one is provided when an infantryman switches to a special weapon (e.g. AT-4/LAW).

[cabal23]

Pop smoke and let the IR take over. You will decimate the enemy. Only bad side is limited smoke.

[MikeyD]

Even though I did not move the tanks like I intended for manuever combat

Maneuver combat mostly involves moving from A to B while beyond the sight of the enemy. The advantage to maneuver combat is to make contact at a place and time to your own best advantage. The actual toe-to-toe fighting may not be all that different. You shoot the opponent down and blow them up while avoiding having the same happen to you. If you've maneuvered correctly you get to do it with locally overwhelming firepower.

[Sivodsi]

O

Sidvosi, for Bad Moon Rising, I am not sure if I took the elevated point or not. I basiclly moved my tanks into the middle of the map and stopped them there. I had one group near the road (6 tanks) and my second group closer to the left edge/middle (8 tanks) from the Blue perspective. I only lost one tank doing this. While not every tank engaged, the angle was just enough that if one tank from each group saw the same T-90, it was fired upon from two different angles. This actually happened quite a few times.

My advice was for playing the red side, not the blue side.

In testing against the AI, red were unbeatable if you just placed them along the first ridge so that they had LOS over the battlefield. With the edge that non-moving tanks get over vehicles moving into LOS and the advantage in the number of guns, the Abrams will die like flies.

Pop smoke and let the IR take over. You will decimate the enemy.

Maybe I'll have to do another test to see if this works vs massed T90s parked on the ridge.

[Flanker15]

Both tank types on that mission have IR sights but only the T-90 has the IR blocking smoke last time I played it.

[Sivodsi]

Just been running through Bad Moon Rising hot seat to test a few things. As per my usual tactics for Red, I fast moved them to the first rise, and left them there. They reached their position after 45 seconds.

The M-1s I split into three: I sent a platoon up the right flank, hopefully out of LOS until they moved inwards to a rise; another platoon went to the first rise in the centre of the map, and the final tanks to the left flank and then inland. It would take them over a minute to reach their positions.

At the end of the first minute of action the stationary reds spot the Abrams speeding up the right flank. It is not until 30 seconds into the next move that the moving Abrams get their first red contact (yes, despite having a target arc centred on them and being continually fired upon at night). By then, one is dead and the others have already been hit several times. They pop smoke, but are shot through it. From the red side you can draw a grey target line to the Abrams, but when you hit go, these T90s open up and kill off two more M1s. One T90 dies, but so have three M1s. These are not good odds for the outnumbered Marine tankers.

Okay, so I'm thinking that the Abrams were spotted before they popped smoke. With the platoon in the middle I'm going to try the tactic of popping smoke and then advancing into LOS through it, relying on the IR sensors to spot the T90s before the T90s see them. The result:

I can categorically state that this tactic will NOT automatically allow you to get off the first shot. Even when ensconsed in the middle of the fog they were nailed by the T-90s. At all times, it seemed that the Abrams could only see one or at most two T-90s at a time, despite all of them being spread evenly along the ridge. On the other hand, two or three Abrams out of four were in LOS of the T-90s at all times.

However, there seems to be some variability built into it. One of the M-1s found a blind spot, and was invisible to the T90s for almost the entire minute, managing to take out a couple more T90s.

That's as far as I've got so far. If I have time I'll make a few more posts.

In the mean time, I'm curious if anyone else finds these results surprising. I have no idea about how it works in RL, but the stationary vehicle in CMSF seems to have too much of an advantage over moving vehicles, even if the moving vehicle knows they are there (ie has them in the centre of a target arc) and is moving through a smokescreen. If those of you with RL experience think that is reasonable I'd be happy to accept it and take it into account in my tactics.

[MarkEzra]

RE: Bad Moon's map size. Perhaps I should double the size of the map as a stand alone scen. I specifically avoided doing that because it was going into the module and not all players machines can handle a VERY large map. Big Bad Moon...is there interest?

[Other Means]

RE: Bad Moon's map size. Perhaps I should double the size of the map as a stand alone scen. I specifically avoided doing that because it was going into the module and not all players machines can handle a VERY large map. Big Bad Moon...is there interest?

Hell yeah. If only for the name.

How about a Big Bad British Moon? CR2s one side, M1A1s the other...

[MikeyD]

For me 2km x 2km is nice and stabile but problems start increasing exponentially as the map gets very much bigger. Open terrain and tank shoot-outs are doable on monster maps but big artillery rocket barrages don't seem work too well. Create too many craters and the video card gasps for breath.

[Battlefront.com]

As good as the modern systems are for engaging targets while on the move, sitting still is going to yield better results overall. Especially with spotting. Think about it... when you are moving everything is in relative motion. When you are sitting still only the moving enemy vehicles are in relative motion. Since the eye/brain responds best to the contrast between motion and stationary objects, spotting while sitting still should yield superior results when the eye/brain is the primary means of target identification.

To even the odds a targeting system would have to identify things in relative motion for the Humans or computers to deal with. For example, a targeting system coupled with radar, such as aircraft have. That's a long ways off as far as I can tell.

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

It's going to be hard to go back to WWII when tanks missed a lot.

[Apocal]

It's going to be hard to go back to WWII when tanks missed a lot.

Honestly, it's going to be easier, because you can get away with stupidity like Medal of Honor Drives when uncovered advance isn't an automatic death sentence for your track. AT guns aren't nearly the threat that ATGMs are either. Even with a AT-3 I can knock around an Abrams, just ask Ali-Baba!

It's cool in some ways though, I don't have to worry so much about getting dealt mass casualties with every move I do or having a tight combined arms coordination to cover my bases.

[dan/california]

There are two subtle berms or rolls inthe ground that provide hull down positions that are actually closer to the American Than Syrian lines. I haven't played it H2H against a person, but against the AI I advance the U.S to the first berm in one brad line. You have to fiddle around a little bit to get each tank in just the right spot, but once this is achieved I just set back and watch the Syrians melt. I might lose one tank.

Rogue 187, it seems we should play a little head to head then , no? See which sides plan survives contact with the enemy.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Honestly, it's going to be easier, because you can get away with stupidity like Medal of Honor Drives when uncovered advance isn't an automatic death sentence for your track. AT guns aren't nearly the threat that ATGMs are either. Even with a AT-3 I can knock around an Abrams, just ask Ali-Baba!

It's cool in some ways though, I don't have to worry so much about getting dealt mass casualties with every move I do or having a tight combined arms coordination to cover my bases.

It's going to be easier to survive on the battlefield, but it's going to be tough watching your Sherman's shells veer off course like a quarterback throwing off his back foot.

[jjhouston]

As good as the modern systems are for engaging targets while on the move, sitting still is going to yield better results overall. Especially with spotting. Think about it... when you are moving everything is in relative motion. When you are sitting still only the moving enemy vehicles are in relative motion. Since the eye/brain responds best to the contrast between motion and stationary objects, spotting while sitting still should yield superior results when the eye/brain is the primary means of target identification.

To even the odds a targeting system would have to identify things in relative motion for the Humans or computers to deal with. For example, a targeting system coupled with radar, such as aircraft have. That's a long ways off as far as I can tell.

Steve

Not really the case when you're scanning with thermals through a gunsight on a stabilized turret. A moving platform's relative motion is less apparent when scanning for targets at greater distances and the stabilization and ballistic computers make the motion less of an issue for the gunner. Using the thermals, what really stands out isn't motion, per se, but hot spots.

One issue that is real important, though, is how smooth the ride is. Kinda hard to track a target when the platform is bouncing so hard that you can't keep your face on the browpad.

[rogue187]

There are two subtle berms or rolls inthe ground that provide hull down positions that are actually closer to the American Than Syrian lines. I haven't played it H2H against a person, but against the AI I advance the U.S to the first berm in one brad line. You have to fiddle around a little bit to get each tank in just the right spot, but once this is achieved I just set back and watch the Syrians melt. I might lose one tank.

Rogue 187, it seems we should play a little head to head then , no? See which sides plan survives contact with the enemy.

Hey Dan, I have no problem going H2H sometime. I have never tried it before, so it may take some instructing on your part.

Question: Why are all the battles generally so one sided? Let me clarify this a bit. I know that during the Cold War it was assumed that US forces would be taking on larger formations of Russian tanks. I have noticed this same trend in Shock Force. While the recent Iraq War saw a smaller American force mobilized than the Gulf War, the Iraqi army was also smaller than the Gulf War. For the Bad Moon Rising battle, would it be a realistic assumption that a force of 14 M1A1 Abrams could engage and defeat a larger force of 30(I forgot the exact count) T-90s in a pure tank on tank engagement? Would it be more likely that the Syrians would have a smaller number of the most modern T-90s? I understand the point of this battle, but I was just wondering if this type of battle would still occur in this fashion.

[Dietrich]

I'd like to see Bad Moon Rising with a much bigger map. It would be interesting to see how the T-90 and M1A1 fare against each other at even greater ranges.

It'll be great to see, for example, a Panther advancing amid small groups of trees and taking hits from two or three 57mm ATGs which ricochet exasperatingly (for the American player, that is) off the front glacis.