Battlefront.com Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Not really wanting to get into a debate on the effectiveness of the JPz Iv/70 but Im sorry the video really does not do the vehicle justice. Yeah, that would be like showing a fairly famous video clip of a Sherman, with wide winter grousers (tracks) helplessly sliding sideways down a street as its tracks moved around uselessly. What does this say about the Sherman? Not much. What it says more about is the terrible conditions of the road It is true, however, that one of the primary problems the Jagdpanzer IV had was being nose heavy. That could be a significant problem considering the gun overhang. Doesn't take much of a dip in mushy terrain to get that gun into trouble. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Relating to Captains eagerness to rush his armour forward, just how vulnerable are infantry to direct fire HE, in CMBN? I used to get mightily sick of having direct fire HE, especially from anti-tank guns, hit fast moving infantry and effectively kill a squad, in under a minute. I always thought that targetting small moving targets with a hand cranked, low-slung weapon, using a restricted field of view sight, would be hard. Depends on range. This is again one of those things which is interesting to learn about German tanks. Their slow turret traverse mechanisms (compared to Shermans) doesn't really matter that much when the target is out 1500m or so, but becomes CRITICAL if the target is a few hundred meters away and moving rapidly perpendicular to the turret's alignment. Same thing with an AT Gun. A target that's far away is going to be easy to adjust and hit because the relative speed of the target at that range is not difficult to keep up with. An infantry target moving the same speed at 100m distance is going to be a lot harder to hit. Again, situationally dependent since if the gun was already mostly pointed in the right direction it might not be that difficult. Steve, yup, had a few pre-suppositions about Tigers corrected by your earlier efforts, especially against 76mm armed Shermans, and yes, hit the reference pages only to find the oft used quotes, about the two tanks were a little misleading. Pattons Best was a fantastic destroyer of myths as well, especially how bloody hard it is to move tanks around, so perhaps that is one of the real reasons we game, to act as a spur to more research. As a guy that went to school to be a historian first, I really like the thought of our games getting people interested in digging deeper into history. Fortunately the last 10-15 years have been blessed with an explosion of quality materials to dig into. I wonder if the military aphorism "If the advance is going well you are walking into an ambush" is going to be proved correct... Me thinks that's exactly where it's headed Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The T-72 family and the new Leopard 2A6 have maneuvering problems with their long cannons too. It just comes with the territory. That's one of the reasons why the U.S. opted out of the 120mm barrel extension program. I've got a photo of a crew of a Centurion digging about two feet of 20 pounder gun barrel out of the side of an embankment in Korea. And Centurion stands considerably higher off the ground that JpzIV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostRider3/3 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The T-72 family and the new Leopard 2A6 have maneuvering problems with their long cannons too. It just comes with the territory. That's one of the reasons why the U.S. opted out of the 120mm barrel extension program. I've got a photo of a crew of a Centurion digging about two feet of 20 pounder gun barrel out of the side of an embankment in Korea. And Centurion stands considerably higher off the ground that JpzIV. Sounds like driver error.. LOL.. Hell even in Iraq us Marines were getting vehicles stuck, overdriving the LAV's or whatever... Youth.. will be youth! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulik Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Depends on range. This is again one of those things which is interesting to learn about German tanks. Their slow turret traverse mechanisms (compared to Shermans) doesn't really matter that much when the target is out 1500m or so, but becomes CRITICAL if the target is a few hundred meters away and moving rapidly perpendicular to the turret's alignment. Same thing with an AT Gun. A target that's far away is going to be easy to adjust and hit because the relative speed of the target at that range is not difficult to keep up with. An infantry target moving the same speed at 100m distance is going to be a lot harder to hit. Again, situationally dependent since if the gun was already mostly pointed in the right direction it might not be that difficult. Steve And in terms of the explosion effect itself? Since the squad is somehow bunched up for the action spot spotting reason, isn't it also prone to get wiped out easily with HE? Does the abstracted cover system providing enough (or additional) cover from explosions to make up for the lack of formations/dispersion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 OK, here I am! Before starting I will have to remind people to not get their knickers in a twist about an extremely small sampling of game results from the very beginning portion of a single game. You'd think you guys would be used to the concepts of probability, but sometimes it seems you forget and wander off I don't want to judge from this small sample, but the results we've seen so far, should be far away from one standard deviation. The modeling in CM:BN is far more varied, factually based, and accurate than what we had in CMx1. This may result in some differences in results from similar matchups in CMx1. However, if such differences come about it is more likely than not that CMx1 had it wrong, not CM:BN. ... Gunnery modeling is quite complex. The PzIV does have some advantages, but most of those are neutralized at this range. We had an EXTREMELY detailed discussion about this internally led by a real life tanker who dug really deep into data to help us figure out what was important to model and how much it influenced the overall outcome. At about 700m or greater the Germans had a gunnery system that allowed them to compute range quicker than the US system. Under this range, they were about the same since the US system was optimized for the closer ranges. Which makes sense because the Sherman 75 wasn't much good as a long range shooter. Putting a 10x scope made by Zeiss on a BB Gun doesn't really do much, does it? Likewise you're not likely to hit targets at 1000m using iron sights on a 7.62 cal sniper rifle. 1st hand battle-reports from German tank-gunners describing engagements at closer ranges below 750m, are full of a widely used common technique, to aim at the "Turmkranz" - the spacing between the turret and the hull, if the armour was questionable to be penetrated. This was only possible, because of the gun accuracy in combination with the optics. From what i see in this battle, this doesn't seem to be modelled. Since only ~17% of German tanks in France were lost due to enemy tanks, that fits into the picture from the 1st hand reports - but doesn't fit very well to the model you describe, Steve. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 1st hand battle-reports from German tank-gunners describing engagements at closer ranges below 750m, are full of a widely used common technique, to aim at the "Turmkranz" - the spacing between the turret and the hull, if the armour was questionable to be penetrated. This was only possible, because of the gun accuracy in combination with the optics. From what i see in this battle, this doesn't seem to be modelled. I'd say that is bogus unless you can show that there are after-action analysis showing that a large number of battle losses came from this cause. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 And in terms of the explosion effect itself? Since the squad is somehow bunched up for the action spot spotting reason, isn't it also prone to get wiped out easily with HE? Does the abstracted cover system providing enough (or additional) cover from explosions to make up for the lack of formations/dispersion? Usually the abstracted cover and slightly nerfed power of HE are enough to keep the squad from being slaughtered, but its not perfect. One of the bigger problems I've seen with it is troops who are hit directly, as in they are in the crater of the round, will be killed outright and that often means a direct hit will result in 1-2 dead if not slightly more. Another issue, which is more pertinent in CM:SF is the exiting vehicle pile up, the squad waits at the exit of their vehicle until everyone is out, which makes them a very nice target for HE and grenades. In fact, I've seen entire squads destroyed by a grenade landing in the middle of the exit vehicle pile up. This of course will be less of a problem in CM:BN with the reduction in transports. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 And in terms of the explosion effect itself? Since the squad is somehow bunched up for the action spot spotting reason, isn't it also prone to get wiped out easily with HE? Does the abstracted cover system providing enough (or additional) cover from explosions to make up for the lack of formations/dispersion? HE fire against concentrated troops is a bit more "forgiving". We did this for CMx1 as well, but in a more abstract way. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Since only ~17% of German tanks in France were lost due to enemy tanks, that fits into the picture from the 1st hand reports - but doesn't fit very well to the model you describe, Steve. I am sorry but that is so far out of context wrt this scenario that it makes no sense. So every CMBN action should see roughly only 17% losses to German Armour from Allied armour? Well we should probably model venreal disease and trench foot too because they caused more damage than shrapnel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Bombs Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Given the above mentioned regarding the accuracy of the exposed part of a tank, will tanks be able to "dig in"? Not that I used it too often in CMx1, but at least it was there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeStak Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 What! No gun droop factors, no atmospheric variables, I'm shocked! Phil are any soft factors modeled, ie the gunner in a Sherman wetting himself because he has mis-identified a Pz IV for a Tiger, surely his first round effort is going to be somewhat affected? It's all well and good modeling hard systems, but these shiny machines with all their hard data are crewed by soft systems who can behave illogically, ramming a King Tiger comes to mind! So if these factors are not included, a Sherman will only perform the way it did if it was being crewed by Cylons, though that constantly scanning eye must play havoc with using a monocular sight! I have to confess, I laughed for a couple of minutes when I read this. The visual of the Cylon twisting his head back and forth to keep his little red eye aligned in his periscope was comic. I can almost hear 'why don't they redesign this piece of @#$!!' in his late 70's robot voice. Very funny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 On the Jagd-70 nose heavy problem, it wasn't primarily an issue of actually sticking the gun into the ground. It is instead a matter of steering. The tank is very nose heavy, with a huge moment arm ahead of the center of the track base. That means it takes much larger power adjustments to turn through a given angle. With a turretless tank, steering is also the primary means of aiming the weapon. Very insensitive steering means difficult aiming. It is just a clumsier beast that either a turreted weapon or a shorter moment arm, or even a gun that big mounted farther back on the vehicle platform... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 1st hand battle-reports from German tank-gunners describing engagements at closer ranges below 750m, are full of a widely used common technique, to aim at the "Turmkranz" - the spacing between the turret and the hull, if the armour was questionable to be penetrated. This was only possible, because of the gun accuracy in combination with the optics. From what i see in this battle, this doesn't seem to be modelled. All tankers aim "center mass", which is roughly the same as "Turmkranz". At less than 750m (or so) the German gunnery systems were not noticeably superior to the Sherman's. Beyond that range is where the US gunnery systems are bested by German systems. Since only ~17% of German tanks in France were lost due to enemy tanks, that fits into the picture from the 1st hand reports - but doesn't fit very well to the model you describe, Steve. And you're right, because what you quoted is completely irrelevant The Allies had similarly low tank losses to other tanks. But in a tank battle tank losses to other tanks was obviously higher. Which is why using a theater wide, multi-month average statistic has absolutely nothing to do with any one specific tactical engagement. This is simple rules of statistics and has nothing to do with this particular situation. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 On the Jagd-70 nose heavy problem, it wasn't primarily an issue of actually sticking the gun into the ground. It is instead a matter of steering. The tank is very nose heavy, with a huge moment arm ahead of the center of the track base. That means it takes much larger power adjustments to turn through a given angle. With a turretless tank, steering is also the primary means of aiming the weapon. Very insensitive steering means difficult aiming. It is just a clumsier beast that either a turreted weapon or a shorter moment arm, or even a gun that big mounted farther back on the vehicle platform... Correct that these sorts of problems were standard for any gun forward turretless vehicle. Which is why the design concept largely fell out of favor after the war (definite exceptions, of course). However, as I remember it the Jagdpanzer IV had a specially bad case of being nose heavy. This means that the ground pressure at the front of the vehicle was significantly higher than at the back. That is sub optimal even in the best of conditions, but it is especially difficult when on soft ground. It has the effect of making the vehicle less maneuverable than it should be for its weight. The long L/70 gun posed other problems for maneuvering. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Wrath of Dagon, thanks for making my point by using the example of Kursk. I didn't, at least not by earth logic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 This AAR has been a revelation and hugely entertaining to read. I hope the rest of us in the player community post some of our own like this once the game is out, because reading a juicy and vividly depicted AAR is almost as fun as playing the game (especially when you're at work at can't play!). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AslakH Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I swear if I once again hear people arguing with me that there should be 5 dead Shermans before 1 Panther gets knocked out I might just shut down the Forum as a form of collective punishment Steve Well, there SHOULD be 5 dead Shermies for every one Panther. That seems reasonable. Not really. But you might answer this question, Steve. If there is something "iffy" about features in the game (accuracy, spotting, etc) you will fix it with a patch, right? If yes, case closed. I've been ghosting this thread and it has become very... nonsensical. "My dad is stronger than your dad!". I love the Panzer IV. It feels so, for a lack of a better word, retro. But I don't expect it to win every other engagement just because it's german. Better tactics shall win the day! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I swear if I once again hear people arguing with me that there should be 5 dead Shermans before 1 Panther gets knocked out I might just shut down the Forum as a form of collective punishment... It's almost more temptation than I can bear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yes, the thought crossed my mind more than once as well... just for a lark! Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Actually, if you think about it everything is implicitly modeled because rounds have their flight paths traced until they hit something. That something is whatever the 3D polygons are. So if it hits turret front, it's turret front. If it hits lower front hullo, it's lower front hull. The relative angle of impact is also determined "naturally" through knowledge of the angle of the round vs. the angle of whatever was hit. It's all there and so there is never a need to ask a question like "is this portion of a particular tank modeled?" because the answer is always "yes". With the old CMx1 system we did have to explicitly simulate things because inherently nothing was simulated. Flight paths were not traced, polygons in the 3D world meant nothing, etc. Instead probability was used to determine where something hit and the results calculated from there. Steve Hell yeah. By explicitly modelling the physical environment you're implicitly modelling all their interactions. As further explicit parameters are modelled more refined implicit behaviour results. Sweet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yes, I'm getting more excited to play this game too. And the more I read the more convinced I am that map design and dimensions will be critical. There will be times when you must use your PzIVs in a furball and times when you must assault long 75s or 88s on a distant ridge using Shermans. Cookie cutter tactics just won't cut it.... Wow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Cookie cutter tactics what do you mean by this ? curious 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I could be wrong, but vehicel damage is still not visually modelled, is it? Thanks also for the first look on the panel. They still use two colour icons. *sight* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 what do you mean by this ? curious Cookie-cutter = the same thing repeated = you'll have to match the tactics to the situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.