Interesting ATGM observations vs BLUEFOR tanks

[Damian90]

DaveDash, can You provide us a pics of where tanks were hit? It actually can matters if armor of vehicles is very good modeled in game.

If we compare these three western tanks from the front, I mean front turret we can see something interesting.

I mean how big are gun masks, they are armored in western tanks yes, it is a simple composite armor, but still rather weak, it will provide protection against simple HEAT warheads, but not against bigger threats.

So as we can see actual gun mask in the M1 is smallest, and gun masks in Leo2's and CR2's have similiar size.

Leopard 2A6 have a NERA type armor over front turret that formes that distinctive wedge, it actually is something we can collate with heavy ERA's on OPFOR tanks, still, gun mask in Leopard 2A6 is big even after redesign, and still posses a big weak zone, even if covered by NERA wedge.

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/leopard_2a6_tower/images/leopard_2a6_tower_07_of_27.jpg

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/leopard_2a6_tower/images/leopard_2a6_tower_06_of_27.jpg

http://data4.primeportal.net/tanks/jeff_derosa/m1a2_details/images/m1a2_details_111_of_125.jpg

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/stephen_cruickshank/challenger_ii/images/challenger_ii_02_of_31.jpg

As we can see, team of dr. Phillip Lett Jr. choose the smallest possible gun mask that can still have place for main gun, coax and gunner auxiliary sight, this is however achieved by sacrificing ergonomy inside, loader have big problems with reloading coax and he need help of gunner, in Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 loader have no such problems but this was achieved by sacrificing protection.

On the other hand, M1 series have insane amount of 7,62x51mm ammo for it's coax and loaders machinge gun, full is 11,400 rounds and ready ammo for coax is from 2800 to 4000 rounds... 4000 rounds is IRCC full amount of ammo taken for Leo2 and CR2 coax.

[DaveDash]

Sure, I can load it up in WEGO and post some screenshots.

I -suspect- that while angles and things are taken into consideration, without fail the tracks always seem the first thing to be damaged. As you can see, they're protected by the berm, so most AT-14 hits should be against the front turret, not anywhere near the tracks. So I think there is also some fudging for the sake of simplicity in there.

We shall see by screenshots. Ill post where the tank is hit, and what damage is sustained.

[gibsonm]

I suspect though that this will be misleading.

IIRC sometime ago there was a whole flurry of posts to the effect that the graphical representation of a hit didn't necessarily accurately reflect where the hit was evaluated as being.

So a graphic of a ATGM hitting say the lower glacis plate inboard of the tracks, didn't mean necessarily that that was where the hit actually happened.

For example you may get a mobility kill from such a lower glacis plate hit, instead of the hit needing to be on the tracks themselves.

I think the argument was somthing along the lines of as you say a simplified graphical representation. So the underlying ballistic calculations are right but the pictures don't necessarily match (I think this was also why the "detailed armour hits" aren't shown, otherwise you might have a flash on the glacis plate with "running gear" displayed).

So you get nice pictures of impacts but they don't necessarily equate to say the exact type of graphics in for example, Steel Beasts Pro AARs.

[Damian90]

Actually the deal with tracks damage when track is not hit directly or in case of very near hit to track, is something I don't like, I have a tank on position and it is hit on lower front hull, sustain actually no damage besides that track.

[DaveDash]

That's a good point gibsonm. I was sort of observing the impacts and they appeared pretty much in the same place every time.

[gibsonm]

Actually the deal with tracks damage when track is not hit directly or in case of very near hit to track, is something I don't like, I have a tank on position and it is hit on lower front hull, sustain actually no damage besides that track.

Well its unlikely to change.

Seriously if you want detailed damage assessment in a modern AFV sim shell out US$125.00 and buy Steel Beasts Pro PE.

The guys here have made numerous decisions that things like this can be explained as "sh*t happens", etc.

Same thing happens when I ask about why Bradleys drive around with the delicate TOW launcher deployed all the time?, why infantry can sit under a main gun and suffer no suppression when its fired?, why Infantry can advance through WP vehicle smoke grenades with no ill effects?, why the crew bail out animations are bizarre?, etc.

Basically they could spend decades getting the detail right and have one or two manic customers left to sell it to.

[gibsonm]

That's a good point gibsonm. I was sort of observing the impacts and they appeared pretty much in the same place every time.

Yes you'll find something similar with LOS checks too.

The LOS often isn't drawn from the Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS) or the Commander's station but from a generic location (the height of which is adjusted up or down depending on the height of the vehicle).

So again you can spend lots of time positioning a vehicle "just right" so its CITV (or other optic) has crest clearance but the game wont allow you to have LOS.

Its an simplification so that the game engine only has to resolve one or two levels of LOS checking instead of an infinite number.

This was a big issue in the early days and improved markedly when they introduced several levels instead of the initial one.

[DaveDash]

Well there is a slight variation on where the missile hits, but pretty much all the impacts are to the front turret. Some on the top. The damage seems to be a combination of tracks, IR sensors, targeting.

Interestingly enough, the Leo2 didn't get destroyed at all this time (Survived 6 or so direct hits), until I moved it outside the berm. And it took a hit directly to the front turret, what looked like the lower part.

So I suspect gibsonm is correct, however.

[DaveDash]

Yes you'll find something similar with LOS checks too.

The LOS often isn't drawn from the Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS) or the Commander's station but from a generic location (the height of which is adjusted up or down depending on the height of the vehicle).

So again you can spend lots of time positioning a vehicle "just right" so its CITV (or other optic) has crest clearance but the game wont allow you to have LOS.

Its an simplification so that the game engine only has to resolve one or two levels of LOS checking instead of an infinite number.

This was a big issue in the early days and improved markedly when they introduced several levels instead of the initial one.

Indeed, although some minor frustrating issues still remain. In particular with ATGM's being able to shoot at you, but you can't shoot back at them with area fire. I've also noticed on the odd occasion a vehicle not being able to fire at level 1 of a building, through where a high wall used to be. Or, not being able to fire at level 1 over a low wall.

[gibsonm]

I've attached a SB Pro PE AAR clip to give you an idea of the detail there.

Of course their Infantry look like cr*p but it just shows every product has its strengths and weaknesses.

[Edit]: Except of course the movie comes to 3Mb zipped and that exceeds the limit.

Putting up a screenshot instead (shows the same detail but the movie lets you looks "around" the world).

[DaveDash]

Im happy overall with CMSF. It's way too late to get anything tweaked, I'd much rather Normandy commence, since overall the game does its job very well now and BFC have supported it for a long time.

However things like this, I'd like to go away.

No LOS to the ground floor:

LOS directly before the building:

LOS to the enemy inside the building:

Slightly off topic tho.

[gibsonm]

Well you could possible argue that all the dust and crap from dropping the wall in the foreground and the earlier hits near the target might well obscure what you are trying to shoot at.

[DaveDash]

Well you could possible argue that all the dust and crap from dropping the wall in the foreground and the earlier hits near the target might well obscure what you are trying to shoot at.

I could make something up like that, but It's not just this instance, there seems to be some sort of bug going over low walls, and going through where walls used to exist. I suspect it's something to do with the way the game calculates which action squares can see other action squares at the time of compiling, because it's not every low wall or every blown up high wall that has this issue.

Not game breaking or anything by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes these things are frustrating, especially when your guys are being mowed down and you need that tank to fire!

[c3k]

Hmmm, or you could read this thread: http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83773

In it, BF.C comments about that situation. Basically, you can target an enemy unit directly, regardless of its position. You can only area target the center of an action spot. Buildings have limited action spots. Enemy units can position themselves at non-action spots.

So, you KNOW the enemy unit is over at that left-most window, but unless he's visible, you cannot utilize suppressing fire against the position. The enemy unit MUST be visible.

A workaround would be to create a targetable action spot at every building orifice. The drawback would be the huge data increase needed to create a lot more LOS' in the pregame LOS table.

BF.C is aware of this shortcoming. I don't recall whether or not they think it is worth fixing in the future.

Ken

From the linked thread, dated September 26th, of two years ago!

"Ah.... yes, OK... I know what you're talking about now. There are times when you can't Area Target a building because you can't draw LOS/LOF to its center, but can target something in a portion of the building if you can see it. Boy, if you don't like it now you should have seen it 2 years ago So the LOS/LOF isn't a problem per se, it is the fact that Area Fire on buildings requires LOS/LOF to the center while target to target does not.

This is definitely something that is on our list to address. In fact, I'm going to bump this up again on my own priority list. I don't remember the coding reasons why this issue still exists, I only know that it isn't an easy fix.

Steve"

If it's on their list, it's been there for over 2 years. I guess that means the "isn't an easy fix" comment is all too true.

[DaveDash]

Hmmm, or you could read this thread: http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83773

In it, BF.C comments about that situation. Basically, you can target an enemy unit directly, regardless of its position. You can only area target the center of an action spot. Buildings have limited action spots. Enemy units can position themselves at non-action spots.

So, you KNOW the enemy unit is over at that left-most window, but unless he's visible, you cannot utilize suppressing fire against the position. The enemy unit MUST be visible.

A workaround would be to create a targetable action spot at every building orifice. The drawback would be the huge data increase needed to create a lot more LOS' in the pregame LOS table.

BF.C is aware of this shortcoming. I don't recall whether or not they think it is worth fixing in the future.

Ken

So the LOS/LOF isn't a problem per se, it is the fact that Area Fire on buildings requires LOS/LOF to the center while target to target does not.

This suddenly explains all!

[c3k]

There are a couple of workarounds:

1. Use a different unit which has LOS to the building center to AREA TARGET the building.

2. Have the original unit move until it has LOS to the building center, then AREA TARGET the building.

3. Have the original unit stay in its current location, but give it a very tight COVERED ARC which includes the window/building location the enemy is using. Go weapons tight on ALL other units targeting that building. That should induce the enemy to pop his head up. That should give the COVERED ARC unit the opportunity to acquire the enemy and fire.

None of the above are great, but those are the only solutions I've come up with...in the two years since I noticed this in my gaming.

Let's hope the fix is in CM:N (but if not, the games are still great).

Ken

[Apache]

But why are you going over the crest?

Stick to the low ground and go around them.

You should only be near the top of a crest if:

1. Turret down doing a recce (that is standing on the turret roof using your binos, with the entire rest of the vehicle concealed), or

2. Hull down supporting the move of the vehicles that are using the low ground to move to the next position. If you are doing that you need to “jockey” (fire one round, reverse come back up 100m+ away from your last location and start over) between rounds. and when you move to the next feature you reverse into dead ground and move around the feature to the next position supported by the other vehicles in the Tp / Pl.

See Post #5 above for a link to videos describing “Jockeying” and “bounds”.

1 and 2 are the precise reasons.

[DaveDash]

Apache, I haven't played the German campaign yet, but I'm going through the Canadian one.

This mission (06) I am sure there are AT-14's and far too many potential spots. I've called down a ton of arty on where I suspect they may be, and I've played a bit of 'cat and mouse' or Jockeying as gibsonm calls it with my recon units, but they havn't taken the bait yet.

I'll let you know how I do, probably in the NATO thread. It may very well be my tanks (if I get them in this mission) just sit looking pretty for most of it.

[JonS]

And it only works in RT (unless you are really, really lucky).

Since I never play RT, I must be really really lucky.

Either that, or perhaps I know how to use the Pause command

[gibsonm]

1 and 2 are the precise reasons.

Ah perhaps I misunderstood then when you said:

"Even then the Leos will crest ridges 2 or even 4 at a time!!!"

To me "crest" there is a verb meaning to "go over the top of"?

If by "crest" you meant "adopt a hull down position behind" then I stand corrected.

[gibsonm]

Since I never play RT, I must be really really lucky.

Either that, or perhaps I know how to use the Pause command

Indeed.

[Apache]

Ah perhaps I misunderstood then when you said:

"Even then the Leos will crest ridges 2 or even 4 at a time!!!"

To me "crest" there is a verb meaning to "go over the top of"?

If by "crest" you meant "adopt a hull down position behind" then I stand corrected.

Interpretation can be problematic. To me there are numerous uses of 'crest' such as "to reach a high point" and "lie at the top of", neither of which need to amount to the whole vehicle going over the top.

Debate over dictionary/personal interpretations aside (internet discussions have a habit of side-tracking down all sorts of tortuous routes that I prefer not to bother with ), as DaveDash suggested I find the Leos much too vulnerable as assets to look for ATGMs in this way. On occasions the vehicles have had to push more over (or even crest ) ridges than I'd like as too low a profile didn't encourage a response. Using them to bait the less sophisticated ATGMs I find to be little problem, the AT14s are just not in that class!!!

Also, there are some maps (first in the German campaign in NATO for instance) where skirting round ridges is not so easy to do. In this mission all German forces are arrayed behind a ridge but need to go over it at some point and cross terrain overseen by enemy forces. Some of these points are slightly more risky than others but there is little alternative.

[gibsonm]

Also, there are some maps (first in the German campaign in NATO for instance) where skirting round ridges is not so easy to do. In this mission all German forces are arrayed behind a ridge but need to go over it at some point and cross terrain overseen by enemy forces. Some of these points are slightly more risky than others but there is little alternative.

Yes happy to leave the post graduate course in semantics / interpretation to someone else.

IIR that mission correctly though don't you have scads of Artillery and it in turn has smoke as an available nature?

[Apache]

Yes there is. There are of course ways to tackle this mission but that's not really the subject of this thread. But, since you raised it smoking is what I did Point is not ALL missions will have favourable terrain and some, maybe, not the assets you would wish for. What then?

I'm sure interested in how forces would ID and deal with weapons such as the AT14 in RL. In the game the liberal use of arty/air seems to be a popular method but, given the cost of materiel would such a tactic, collateral damage aside, be used in RL?

I am interested in military history, strategy and tactics but my interest is mainly around classical, medieval, napoleonic and comes to an abrupt halt at 1946. Of course many considerations will carry over from era to era but I do find that there is a distinct difference between real life doctrine and game doctrine, the better games managing to reduce the gap. A knowledge of tactics etc is certainly a help but they will not always be applicable in game terms, hence I am somewhat choosy over the various strategy/tactics 'guides' that spring up.

But again it's digressing. AT14s are definitely ones to watch for in CMSF and, where Leopards are concerned, particularly so. Doubtless I will draw them out with liberal arty use game wise, and shield with smoke if I am unable to do so. Much more may not be possible and that may reflect RL really well, I just find it strange that expending vast quantities of arty fire would be an acceptable tactic and if so, would rather limit use of it in that way, at least for this type of purpose.

[gibsonm]

Yes there is. There are of course ways to tackle this mission but that's not really the subject of this thread. But, since you raised it smoking is what I did Point is not ALL missions will have favourable terrain and some, maybe, not the assets you would wish for. What then?

At its simplest "adapt, improvise, overcome". As the commander that's what you are paid for.

That may take the form of going back to your boss and asking for more equipment or using a different axis of assault or changing the time so you can maybe conduct a dismounted night attack or something else to mitigate the ATGM threat.

Worst case you do what you are told (remember you aren't employed in some democracy) and hope that your attack wont replicate the first day of the Somme too closely.

I'm sure interested in how forces would ID and deal with weapons such as the AT14 in RL. In the game the liberal use of arty/air seems to be a popular method but, given the cost of materiel would such a tactic, collateral damage aside, be used in RL?

If you are the US (rich in assets and not bound by the International Criminal Court for war crimes) then sure "nuke the place" (in reality air and arty) until it glows, lose the hearts and minds war, create a brilliant obstacle belt from all the rubble and press on.

If you are pretty much any other "first world" nation with a bunch of lawyers embedded and are bound by the ICC you need to think smarter not just use a bigger stick.

So at longer range Javelin or MILAN or TOW works. Closer use your AGL. Otherwise use tanks with mutual support and interlocking arcs (the tank on my left is fired on, I fire on the signature and it may disrupt the missile's flight). Your crew commanders will move around "opened up" accepting the personal risk so they can see and hence mitigate the risk to the vehicle, they often will see (or be alerted to the missile launch) and can use the vehicle smoke and return fire from the coax again to disrupt the firer.

I am interested in military history, strategy and tactics but my interest is mainly around classical, medieval, napoleonic and comes to an abrupt halt at 1946. Of course many considerations will carry over from era to era but I do find that there is a distinct difference between real life doctrine and game doctrine, the better games managing to reduce the gap. A knowledge of tactics etc is certainly a help but they will not always be applicable in game terms, hence I am somewhat choosy over the various strategy/tactics 'guides' that spring up.

Indeed so you can compare your Leo 2 vs AT14 issue with say the problem faced in the Western Desert with Crusaders Vs 88mm Flak, etc.

The Game Vs Simulation discussion is about 50% of what is talked about in the Beta area. Some want "this" but it will slow Mr Average's PC to a crawl or others want "that" because it was seen in some FPS somewhere.

Personally I think BTS / BFC try to aim at just on the Sim side of the Sim <-> Game spectrum (say 60% Sim / 40% Game).

But again it's digressing. AT14s are definitely ones to watch for in CMSF and, where Leopards are concerned, particularly so. Doubtless I will draw them out with liberal arty use game wise, and shield with smoke if I am unable to do so. Much more may not be possible and that may reflect RL really well, I just find it strange that expending vast quantities of arty fire would be an acceptable tactic and if so, would rather limit use of it in that way, at least for this type of purpose.

Well I think there are also issues with giving these Special Forces / Fighter types great numbers of what isn't really a SF weapon.

I suspect (and this is not to be interpreted as some sort of dis service to the scenario authors) that giving the Syrian lots of AT14 (more than 1 per ad hoc / SF company to me is "lots") is an attempt to balance out the superior Western AFVs.

Now I have no doubt that a first line Syrian AT Coy would have quit a few but most of these battle aren't against "regular" forces but rather the "fringe dwellers" of the SF / unconventional community.

I suspect if they weren't there players would complain that fighting the Syrians is a "push over" (there's a large enough chorus of that already).