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

[MikeyD]

...with the camera controls.

Something everybody learns pretty quickly - mouse/mousewheel camera controls are infinitely preferable to keyboard up-down-left-right commands. Learning camera controls alone is reason enough to grab the CMSF or CMAfghanistan demos.

[LongLeftFlank]

You might be right about dead vehicles not blocking incoming shots against armor. I've never played CMSF, so I have no idea. But as far as aiming at the center of mass of a vehicle when only a portion of the vehicle is visible, that doesn't make sense and doesn't seem to jive with what Steve said earlier in the thread. Hopefully he can chime in and clear things up. I hope that dead vehicles aren't "invisible" to anti-armor shots. That's one thing I always hated about CMBB and was hoping that 1:1 representation would fix.

No, wrecks DO physically block shots, but I believe the shooting unit disregards them for purposes of deciding whether or not to take the shot. So the phenomenon you may get is an AFV pumping shot after shot into a wreck in a futile effort to hit a vehicle it "sees" beyond it.

The same is not true of cover terrain like walls; if I understand rightly, firing ordnance will recognize that a wall is there and limit its targeting to the portion of the vehicle it can see. It may still hit the wall (or ground) with an undershoot of course.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Minute 17 Part 1

1st platoon and HQ Element

Tank 1 (the remaining 1st Platoon tank) will remain in its overwatch position as will the Company HQ tank (CO HQ). However HQ 1 will attempt a little M-10 hunting expedition.

As HQ 1 is pulling into position, a round from one of the M-10s streaks towards him, luckily it can’t get through the trees. Note that HQ 1 cannot yet see the M-10 that took the shot (the image below is a composite of two screen captures).

This is good, it means Warren hasn’t pulled them out of that little copse of woods… of course, if I can get a bead on him, those few trees aren’t going to help him much. You want as many trees as possible between your tank and the enemy gun.

2nd Platoon

With the following sequence I aim to illustrate how superior positioning, changing battlefield effects, and cover arcs can affect both spotting and engagement time in CMBN. The following image shows Tanks 3 and 4 of 2nd Platoon. You can see that they have overlapping cover arcs, and both are hull down.

In particular Tank 4’s cover arc is set so the copse of woods the M-10s are in, is in the center. What this does is center the barrel and if the M-10s come into view then he will have a very short engagement time from first sighting to shooting as his barrel will only need minor corrections to be on target.

Tank 4 can spot the M4A1 that was destroyed several turns ago, while Tank 3 cannot.

Why?

The M-10 that was hit in this same area popped a lot of smoke when it withdrew. The wind has been pushing and dissipating this smoke slowly over the last several turns, and now it is slowly clearing. Tank 4’s view of the dead M4A1 is clear now and I suspect that it will be for Tank 3 as well shortly. With this rate of clearance, how long can it be until the M-10s are unmasked?

Tank 4 spots both M-10s at 43:28, and gets the first round off at 43:22, for a total of 6 seconds from spotting to firing.

Tank 3 spots only one M-10 at 43:27 and gets its first shot off at 43:19, for a total of 8 seconds.

I believe that tank 4 also had a more complicated decision to make as it could actually see both M-10s… did it spend a second or two deciding which tank to fire on first? It seemed to, to me anyway; its turret slewed to the side slightly for a second or two before turning back quickly and engaging.

By the way, neither of these M-10s are hull down, and neither is deep enough in cover to increase spotting times.

That two second difference could be the difference between surviving and leaving a smoking hulk on the field.

Next: Minute 17 - Part 2

[Bil Hardenberger]

Minute 17 Part 2

2nd Platoon Continued…

The following is the firing sequence on the M-10s. The firing tank is circled in red.

Also of note, despite having its turret facing the two hull down panzers, the M-10 never sees them, nor does the second M-10 ever react (I think it was down at least two crew members at this time). You can see that they are hull down really well from this perspective.

Tank 4 sights and then fires on the M-10:

Tank 3 fires (the casualty markers are from Tank 4's first hit), then Tank 4 fires a second round (note that the M-10 driver has rotated the hull in the direction of the incoming rounds):

Tank 3 fires and hits for a second time (this hit knocks out the TD), and Tank 4 switched targets and gets a penetration on the second M-10 right at the end of the turn:

End result, one M-10 knocked out, and right at the end of the turn the other was penetrated (not bad for a couple of REGULAR crews, eh?). These tanks proved tougher than I thought they would, with four rounds needed to knock out each.

At the end of the turn, two of these teams were seen in the big woods trying to get a good shot off at 2nd Platoon’s HQ Tank. Note that from this perspective my 2nd Platoon tanks are definitely not hull down.

Next: Minute 18

[Broadsword56]

I'm surprised the commanders in these two German tanks remain unbuttoned with all these fireworks flying around (compared to the US tanks, which have always seemed to be buttoned). Any reason for this? Did you order them to stay unbuttoned, Bil? Or is this behavior the tank commanders' own AI decisions?

[Bil Hardenberger]

I always order my tanks to unbutton for the added sighting advantage they recieve (Israeli tankers do this too.. at least they did in their heyday of the Arab-Israeli wars)... the AI will button them if it feels the need from incoming fire, etc.. but I am not receiving any fire, so why should they button?

[GhostRider3/3]

I think it was standard practice in tanks that the crew were equipped with earphones with detachable wires on the headsets so the wire wouldn't get rapped around the tank crewman's neck when they bailed out.

Think I might have read that in "Tank Aces" 1 or 2 or "Armor Battles of the Waffen SS"

ISBN 0-8117-2905-2

On another note, the headsets in the screenies look very much like the one worn on by the guy on the right in the above book cover.

Game on.

Nice, I have that entire series... good reads.

[Wengart]

I just did a quick test in CM:SF and have confirmed that destroyed vehicles do not block LOF when the target is a vehicle, however they will if the target is infantry.

I took two companies of red armor (T-72s) and used all but 2 platoons to create a wall between the 2 "test" platoons of T-72s and the company of Abrams.

The two test platoons were deployed so the first platoon would provide protection for the second.

This was the deployment, + are Abrams, = are T-72s the range varied from 200 to 350 meters.

+++

+++

+++

====

====

======

===

===

[PanzerMiller]

Nice, I have that entire series... good reads.

Given the number of books in the Stackpole series, that's quite an accomplishment!

I just started to read Grenadiers -- Kurt Meyer's memoirs of his activities in the East and the West. I figured that would be a good way to gear up for the CM:BN release...

[PanzerMiller]

I strongly recommend you download the CMSF mega-demo to acclimate yourself to the interface.

Thanks for the advice...I've stuck with CMBO/CMBB over the years and I've been a bit nervous about how different the UI was going to be in this newest offering. Mega-demo will be on its way soon...

[Sivodsi]

I just did a quick test in CM:SF and have confirmed that destroyed vehicles do not block LOF when the target is a vehicle, however they will if the target is infantry.

I took two companies of red armor (T-72s) and used all but 2 platoons to create a wall between the 2 "test" platoons of T-72s and the company of Abrams.

The two test platoons were deployed so the first platoon would provide protection for the second.

This was the deployment, + are Abrams, = are T-72s the range varied from 200 to 350 meters.

+++

+++

+++

====

====

======

===

===

Do you mind just clarifying this point?

- we know that destroyed vehicles don't block LOS, but you are saying here that they "do not block LOF"? You mean "Line of Fire"?

So you are saying that the Abrams could shoot the T72s behind the destroyed T72s? That is, they shot through the destroyed T72s and killed the T72s behind?

Or are you saying that the Abrams did not attempt to fire the main gun on the live T72s behind the destroyed ones, even though they could see them?

:confused::confused::confused:

[Praetori]

I don't understand why a lot of people are going on about dismounted crews.

It's not like it was unusual during the war, at least from the German side.

There are so many accounts from interviews with former tankers that it's almost impossible to miss.

Reconing of ground conditions, looking for the enemy, communicating with other forces while under fire. I can even recall several Barbarossa interviews where tank crews cleared trench-lines on foot since the terrain was unfavorable for their tanks or the tanks were out of ammo or damaged.

[LJFHutch]

I'm dying for the next part ...

[Bil Hardenberger]

I'm dying for the next part ...

Did you see turn 17 on the previous page?

[Bil Hardenberger]

In fact, I noticed Steve hasn't added links for the last two installments yet, so here they are:

Warren's Turn 15 response: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1242503&postcount=846

MINUTE 16: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1242509&postcount=848

MINUTE 17 - Part 1 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1242689&postcount=878

MINUTE 17 - Part 2 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1242690&postcount=879

[Golani]

I always order my tanks to unbutton for the added sighting advantage they recieve (Israeli tankers do this too.. at least they did in their heyday of the Arab-Israeli wars)...

There's simply no need for that today, most of the time...

[Praetori]

There's simply no need for that today, most of the time...

Not that it's unbuttoned per se, but standing up on the roof of a tank/AFV approaching a ridgeline or embankment is still the best for spotting while avoiding exposure of the vehicle. The need is less these days with UAVs and whatnot but not even a UAV can beat eyes on (especially when it's YOU who might die when a mistake is made). :cool:

edit: of course the speed should be quite low and the driver told to apply the brakes with care lest the commander rips off the helmet cables doing areal acrobatics.

[Gromit]

From the German Army pamphlet: Panzer Vorwärts! Aber mit Verstand!

Bil:

I've been meaning to ask you if you could provide a source link or such for the Panzer Forwards! document?

Thanks!

[Bil Hardenberger]

Bil:

I've been meaning to ask you if you could provide a source link or such for the Panzer Forwards! document?

Thanks!

No problem: http://www.tripprobbins.com/gaming/CM/panzer-vorwarts.htm

[dan/california]

Not that it's unbuttoned per se, but standing up on the roof of a tank/AFV approaching a ridgeline or embankment is still the best for spotting while avoiding exposure of the vehicle. The need is less these days with UAVs and whatnot but not even a UAV can beat eyes on (especially when it's YOU who might die when a mistake is made). :cool:

edit: of course the speed should be quite low and the driver told to apply the brakes with care lest the commander rips off the helmet cables doing areal acrobatics.

I bet their is a lot of closely supervised latrine digging involved in breaking your tank commanders nose with sloppy driving. Maybe in places where the latrines are already in use!

[LongLeftFlank]

Like this?

[Golani]

Not that it's unbuttoned per se, but standing up on the roof of a tank/AFV approaching a ridgeline or embankment is still the best for spotting while avoiding exposure of the vehicle. The need is less these days with UAVs and whatnot but not even a UAV can beat eyes on (especially when it's YOU who might die when a mistake is made). :cool:

edit: of course the speed should be quite low and the driver told to apply the brakes with care lest the commander rips off the helmet cables doing areal acrobatics.

1 word- thermals :cool:

It's better then your eyes, mostly

[Battlefront.com]

A couple of comments in semi-random order...

Fast Recon vehicles, like M8s or SdKfz 222, were an operational tool and therefore speed should be considered more of an operational asset rather than a tactical one. Not to say it wasn't important tactically, because it was, but the primary intent was to act as recon for much larger formations over greater areas. This is similar to the arguments around the US Stryker family of 8x8 vehicles. Their biggest contribution is getting infantry, reliably, from one area to another very quickly and with minimal fuss. Recon is, from a mobility standpoint, similar even though the mission performed is quite different.

Bil is definitely using his crews in a "gamey" way. There's not much we can do about this other than to hit the Morale to make them less likely to engage in combat. They are naturally not connected to the C2 chain (headphones aren't radios!) so whatever they see isn't passed along to other units unless they are VERY close (and likely spotting the same things on their own).

Dismounting crews is not gamey, however. In real life crews dismounted to get the lay of the land, identify best firing positions, double check for things that could interfere with movement, etc. Doing this, however, exposes your little guys to everything. Therefore, dismounting crews must be done VERY carefully or you might find that expensive bit of metal you purchased sitting idle for the rest of the battle.

Dead vehicles do NOT block LOF only when the target is another vehicle. This is a necessary abstraction to get around a rather big, nasty TacAI problem. Early in CM:SF's history you could safely park behind a wreck and an enemy vehicle on the other side could just pump round after round into the wreck and (probably) not cause any damage. Yet we do allow vehicles to fire through friendly vehicles, which meant that LOF was not "two way" in this circumstance. That's been long since changed so that LOF is blocked in both directions. LOS, on the other hand, is only blocked if the dead vehicle is spewing smoke. That's a new addition to CM:BN.

Steve

[ClarkWGriswold]

Dead vehicles do NOT block LOF only when the target is another vehicle. This is a necessary abstraction to get around a rather big, nasty TacAI problem. Early in CM:SF's history you could safely park behind a wreck and an enemy vehicle on the other side could just pump round after round into the wreck and (probably) not cause any damage. Yet we do allow vehicles to fire through friendly vehicles, which meant that LOF was not "two way" in this circumstance. That's been long since changed so that LOF is blocked in both directions. LOS, on the other hand, is only blocked if the dead vehicle is spewing smoke. That's a new addition to CM:BN.

I think I'm even more confused than I was before...

Let's say that I have two PzIVs driving in a column across a field, with a separation of 20 meters between them. 700 meters directly ahead is an enemy M10. The M10 fires and takes out the #1 Panzer. In real life, line of sight and line of fire would BOTH be blocked from BOTH directions, whether or not Panzer #1 is smoking, because there is an object of considerable size between Panzer #2 and the M10. It sounds as though CMBN would treat LOS the same as real life, but that LOF would be as though there is no dead vehicle at all.

What if the M10 were offset 10 degrees to the approaching Panzers? In the real world he would be able to see that there's a second tank back there, but wouldn't have much of a shot because only a very tiny portion of it would be visible. But in CMBN he would be able to shoot through the dead vehicle for a center-of-mass shot at the remaining PzIV. Correct?

What if the situation was a Stug and a PzIV? The Stug gets hit and does not smoke. In the real world the PzIV would essentially be completely hull down to the M10. Obviously a huge advantage for the Panzer. But if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the M10 could just shoot *through* the Stug and kill the Panzer with no real penalty? Is that correct? Or are you saying that LOF is blocked for BOTH vehicles?

Is this same limitation true of other objects like houses? Why can the TacAI handle a vehicle that is hull down behind a hill, but not behind some other object? What's the difference?

[RogCBrand]

That's been long since changed so that LOF is blocked in both directions.

It sounds to me as though vehicles will not be able to fire through wrecks- enemy or friendly.