A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

[The Instigator]

Shermans with balls!

[Paulverisor64]

Great, I can't see the last two pictures, just get a box with a red X!

They were X'd out for me as well but there was right click option that allowed display of the pictures.

[ZPB II]

Warms my heart to read that the Sherman has got much needed love. In my opinion, CMx1 tanks were unrealistically impervious to non-penetrating hits. Small caliber AA was effective, but cannons that didn't penetrate felt like limp noodles. Like the CMBB Stug that was completely immune to 76,2mm fire from point blank range...I really dig the subsystems in CMx2 and how easily you can have critical components of super tanks damaged, just as it should be. I am hoping to see lots of uber cats crippled by massive hail firing, turrets jamming, the force of the blows moving the gun out of alignment, crew eating spall...

[gunnersman]

I think I recall somewhere that the AI in CMx1 was designed to always go for the turret in any case. So in the case of the Sherman the turret was the weakest part of the frontal area. The hull had thinner armor but was very sloped (51 degrees I think?).

Or are squib rounds simulated in CMBN too?

[Sivodsi]

Bil, one thing I notice is the restrictive covered arcs that you are using. One of the things I've learnt from CMSF is that you are asking for trouble from anything that pops up outside of that arc.

If you had a panther with a narrow arc set, and a sherman pops up to the side outside of the arc in full LOS, would the panther react at all?

In CMSF, if the panther was an Abrams, I don't think it would (at least in an earlier build it would not, as I only play PBEMs I haven't been brave enough to test). This is why I always use half circles when I want to orient the turret a particular way, when in the situation shown in the your screenshot.

So, my question is, in CMBN, if a sherman popped up out of the covered arc of the PIV, plainly in LOS, would the PIV take any action?

[Bil Hardenberger]

Bil, one thing I notice is the restrictive covered arcs that you are using. One of the things I've learnt from CMSF is that you are asking for trouble from anything that pops up outside of that arc.

Yes, but in this case nothing was to my flanks, everything was in front. A narrower arc will help them spot anything in that arc much faster and will keep the turret from slewing out of alignment at just the wrong time.

If you had a panther with a narrow arc set, and a sherman pops up to the side outside of the arc in full LOS, would the panther react at all?

In CMSF, if the panther was an Abrams, I don't think it would (at least in an earlier build it would not, as I only play PBEMs I haven't been brave enough to test). This is why I always use half circles when I want to orient the turret a particular way, when in the situation shown in the your screenshot.

So, my question is, in CMBN, if a sherman popped up out of the covered arc of the PIV, plainly in LOS, would the PIV take any action?

I believe it will.. but I'm going to have to test that to be certain. I'm sure I've had vehicles/units engage enemy units outside their covered arc.

On the subject of covered arcs.. if you use full half circles (and sometimes the situation demands it for sure) you are asking that tank to cover a lot of area when spotting. It is much more effective to use narrower covered arcs (as I explained above).

Best to use your tanks in pairs or as an entire Platoon to insure all the area is covered, but in smaller pieces of the pie per vehicle. I prefer to concentrate my arc on the area I KNOW an enemy unit is located... that way I have a much higher chance of spotting it when the turn runs.

Bil

[Sivodsi]

Thanks for the quick response, Bil,

I'm also sure in CMSF that the covered arc does not improve the actual spotting ability by much, if at all. The function was more intended to tell your unit where not to fire. So in CMSF I don't think setting a narrow covered arc would improve spotting vs a wide covered arc.

With the slower turret speeds in WW2, I can see that setting a narrower arc could be advantageous.

If it is the case that narrow covered arcs improve spotting over wide covered arcs, then BFT have tweaked the system for CMBN. Great!

[Battlefront.com]

The discussion we had internally, using hard data and sound math, shows that the M4A3 was pretty good under some circumstances against the 75mm guns found mounted in PzIVs, Pak40s, and various self propelled tank destroyers. The key factors were extremely good slope, decent armor, and oblique angles. A Sherman from the side would be toast if the round hit the hull, but that nice rounded turret might be able to shrug off a hit or two.

The 75mm mounted on Panthers, however, is a completely different story. And this makes sense! The KwK 40 L/48 gun was introduced in 1942. A good rule of thumb for WW2 is anything produced a year later was at least moderately able to cope with anything produced the year before. Anything produced two years later was likely adequate to defend against.

So what you will see is the PzIVs have no problems with some Shermans and some problems with others. Panthers, on the other hand, have little problem with any Shermans.

Steve

[Bil Hardenberger]

...that way I have a much higher chance of spotting it when the turn runs.

I may have mis-spoke earlier when I said this. Narrower arcs might not actually increase your spotting chances within that arc, but what it will do is allow you to engage much quicker.

If you are in a gun fight, as I am here, you want to be the first to engage. This tactic gives you a slight edge over an opponent who 1. might not have an arc set at all, or 2. might have a wider arc set (so his barrel has longer to travel in order to cover that arc than yours).

I just wanted to clarify. Its a small point but I don't want to create any mis-conceptions about the abilities inherent in CMBN.

Bil

[Wengart]

With infantry squads having an arc set will focus almost all of the squads eyes in that direction, presumably increasing the spotting ability of that squad in that particular direction.

[stikkypixie]

Thanks for the quick response, Bil,

I'm also sure in CMSF that the covered arc does not improve the actual spotting ability by much, if at all. The function was more intended to tell your unit where not to fire. So in CMSF I don't think setting a narrow covered arc would improve spotting vs a wide covered arc.

Isn't spotting also a function of orientation of the turret? That might help indirectly.

[Sivodsi]

I may have mis-spoke earlier when I said this. Narrower arcs might not actually increase your spotting chances within that arc, but what it will do is allow you to engage much quicker.

If you are in a gun fight, as I am here, you want to be the first to engage. This tactic gives you a slight edge over an opponent who 1. might not have an arc set at all, or 2. might have a wider arc set (so his barrel has longer to travel in order to cover that arc than yours).

I just wanted to clarify. Its a small point but I don't want to create any mis-conceptions about the abilities inherent in CMBN.

Bil

Okay, that chimes with what I thought.

However, I dispute that it necessarily allows you to engage much quicker. What you say in 2) above is only true if the enemy has a wide target arc that is not centred on your tank.

In fact you have just presented an argument against setting narrow target arcs, since if your enemy in 2) had set a narrow target arc that was not centered on your tank, it would not fire at all since you would be outside its target arc, giving you a free shot.

So the situation is this: if you set a narrow target arc your only advantage comes with your opponents carelessness, and you risk not being able to react to threats outside the target arc.

If you set a wide target arc (centered on the perceived threat) then you not only cover the threat from the direction you expect, but can cover threats that may appear from unexpected directions.

So, in nearly all cases* it is better to set a wide target arc centred on the area from where the perceived threat comes. This is a lesson I have learnt from experience!

The danger of the wide target arc is that you will shoot at things that are not a threat to you, and thereby give away your position. Err, was it established whether CMBN reintroduced the separate 'armored covered arc' and 'infantry covered arc'? Really hope so.

*Naturally, I say 'nearly all cases' because sometimes the enemies LOS to you is 100% blocked from your flank and rear, and in those cases sure, you might as well set a narrow target arc.

In your situation, you could almost certainly guarantee that the enemy would appear in your arc, right? But how certain do you need to be? I say, take no chances, give yourself a wide arc!

[Sivodsi]

Isn't spotting also a function of orientation of the turret? That might help indirectly.

Absolutely! You use the half-arc to centre your turret on the direction of the perceived threat - that's why one of my long held but unexpressed gripes (IIRC!) with CMSF was the decision to ditch the automatic semi circle from CMX1. Introducing the 'full circle' was one of those 'improvements' that really didn't improve things much at all. As an option the full circle is nice, but the semi-circle is more useful.

Hey, long time no play, stikky, still regret somehow not being able to finish that urban nightmare scenario... lets get a PBEM rumbling when this thing comes out, eh?

[Bastables]

I think I recall somewhere that the AI in CMx1 was designed to always go for the turret in any case. So in the case of the Sherman the turret was the weakest part of the frontal area. The hull had thinner armor but was very sloped (51 degrees I think?).

Or are squib rounds simulated in CMBN too?

I thought it was one of the few abstractions where once a tank was judged as hit there was a 50%chance that the turret was hit, and the other 50% being divided between upper and lower hull. This would result in higher likelihood of turret hits.

[gunnersman]

I thought it was one of the few abstractions where once a tank was judged as hit there was a 50%chance that the turret was hit, and the other 50% being divided between upper and lower hull. This would result in higher likelihood of turret hits.

That may be it exactly. Or now that I think about it I may also be thinking of the targeting line also snaps to the turret when targeting a tank with another tank (or gun, bazooka etc).

[Other Means]

I thought it was one of the few abstractions where once a tank was judged as hit there was a 50%chance that the turret was hit, and the other 50% being divided between upper and lower hull. This would result in higher likelihood of turret hits.

Not 50/50, which is why it was better to have PzIVs hull up. You got hit at a higher percentage but also the chances of it hitting glacis was higher so overall you were slightly better.

That's also how BFC could give a "hull down" command. It would move to a point then just switch off the hull.

Neither can be done in the current system.

[scottie]

Lovin' your work Bil , great text, great images to back the info up.

[scottie]

Yeah QB maps on average are not as detailed as maps made for a historically based scenario. But they serve the purpose when the game is being used as a sandbox to practice and examine tactical principals or just to have fun on.

Dont worry Longleftflank there are plenty of Maps that will give you that Normandy fix. However I appreciate the different map styles in the QB folder for a change of pace once in a while.

Phew was disapointed at the look of the QB map at first glance too. Good to hear there are much better ones available.

[stikkypixie]

Absolutely! You use the half-arc to centre your turret on the direction of the perceived threat - that's why one of my long held but unexpressed gripes (IIRC!) with CMSF was the decision to ditch the automatic semi circle from CMX1. Introducing the 'full circle' was one of those 'improvements' that really didn't improve things much at all. As an option the full circle is nice, but the semi-circle is more useful.

Hey, long time no play, stikky, still regret somehow not being able to finish that urban nightmare scenario... lets get a PBEM rumbling when this thing comes out, eh?

Sure thing, a nice open map . I'll drop you an email when April comes.

[stikkypixie]

Not 50/50, which is why it was better to have PzIVs hull up. You got hit at a higher percentage but also the chances of it hitting glacis was higher so overall you were slightly better.

That's also how BFC could give a "hull down" command. It would move to a point then just switch off the hull.

Neither can be done in the current system.

Not sure this is entirely correct, didn't hull down command stop until it was in a position that was hull down relative to the waypoint?

[kulik]

Does the game count the horizontal slope of armor? I mean if the vehicle stands diagonally the armor becomes more slope than if the round hits it from the front.

[panzermartin]

Does the game count the horizontal slope of armor? I mean if the vehicle stands diagonally the armor becomes more slope than if the round hits it from the front.

I think this is in since CMx1.

[stikkypixie]

Does the game count the horizontal slope of armor? I mean if the vehicle stands diagonally the armor becomes more slope than if the round hits it from the front.

IIRC the game determines which plate of the armour is hit by intersecting the polygons of the model with the incoming round and uses that as a starting point to determine the type of possible damage (penetration, bounce, etc...) and what systems should/could be damaged (optics, guns, radio, engine, etc...) .

[stoex]

Coming in a little late with a reference to the beginning of this thread...

Did anyone besides me notice that in Bil's PzIVH's, the radio operator appears in the text box on the left hand side, but is not shown among the crew members in the GUI? He only shows up there when he is manning the MG, it seems. At least in later shots, five crew members are shown in the GUI, with the bottommost one featuring an MG icon. However, while the others are named according to their function, this 5th crew member has no designation, only the weapon icon. In the early screenshots, he is not shown at all.

This seems strange and somewhat counterintuitive to me - meaning I would expect all crew members to appear in the GUI as long as they are alive, like in CMSF. Otherwise, how do I know when one of them is wounded? Wounded men disappear from the text box after having been buddy-aided, which in vehicles is near instantaneous. I'm not a grog, so for me having a visual clue as to how many men are in my tank, and which ones are wounded, is important to me. Maybe not to other people...

Also, this would indicate to me that the radio operator is not equipped with a sidearm - is this correct and if so, why not?

Anyhow, this may have to do with the CMBN build this QB is being played on, but I thought I'd put it out there.

[Sergei]

Did anyone besides me notice that in Bil's PzIVH's, the radio operator appears in the text box on the left hand side, but is not shown among the crew members in the GUI? He only shows up there when he is manning the MG, it seems. At least in later shots, five crew members are shown in the GUI, with the bottommost one featuring an MG icon. However, while the others are named according to their function, this 5th crew member has no designation, only the weapon icon. In the early screenshots, he is not shown at all.

There's Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver and the fifth guy who is the radio operator.