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

[Bil Hardenberger]

Can't have been a fire as it isn't modeled (outside of burning vehicles) in CMBN...Bil?

Correct, fire is not simulated yet in CMBN.. that was just the remnants of an HE round explosion effect.

Which brings up Question #4. Does the AI select your ammo type or can the player intervene and select to fire different ammo type?

Nope, AI handles all round choice by each tank/gun, etc.

[Michael Emrys]

M-18's armor was much thinner; it was designed more for speed than protection.

And yet, I have read that it had the best kill/loss ratio of any US TD. Possibly any US AFV, but I'd have to check that.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

And yet, I have read that it had the best kill/loss ratio of any US TD. Possibly any US AFV, but I'd have to check that.

Michael

I wonder if this isn't partially because the M18 was so clearly built for one job only: ambushing enemy armor. It's really best thought of as an AT Gun on tracks. You hear about the M10 being used in roles for which it wasn't really intended by commanders who either (a) didn't really understand the TD's intended role, and/or ( just really needed whatever armor support they could get their hands on, and M10s happened to be what was nearby.

But the M18's paper-thin armor makes it much more clear that it's NOT a tank, and therefore perhaps it was less likely to be sent to do a tank's job.

Purely speculation on my part.

[Sergei]

I wonder if this isn't partially because the M18 was so clearly built for one job only: ambushing enemy armor. It's really best thought of as an AT Gun on tracks. You hear about the M10 being used in roles for which it wasn't really intended by commanders who either (a) didn't really understand the TD's intended role, and/or ( just really needed whatever armor support they could get their hands on, and M10s happened to be what was nearby.

But the M18's paper-thin armor makes it much more clear that it's NOT a tank, and therefore perhaps it was less likely to be sent to do a tank's job.

Purely speculation on my part.

M10 was slow and had an unpowered turret, so it was not nearly as useful for any kind of flanking maneuvers as the agile M18. Some may say that M10 was well-armoured, but I say it's bogus. It wasn't sufficiently armoured to risk being in the receiving end of the first shot, and with the hand-cranked turret it was likely to not have the initiative when advancing, unless the enemy location could be anticipated.

With M10 you kind of depend on the enemy to enter your killzone, whereas with a force of M18's you are able to maneuver aggressively.

[GhostRider3/3]

I found the M10s to be pretty accurate. The two on the hill were first round kills. The one that took multiple hits also had two crew cas. All in all like most TDs the M10 has a nice big gun, crazy slow turret or gun traverse and very light armour (note there are exceptions like the JPz IV..beautiful piece of kit btw)

I have to check but I think Sherman crew commanders have a SMG. But remember the SMG is only effective a really short ranges (ie sub 100m) so it isn't really going to make that huge a difference if the crew runs up against an infantry squad.

Can't have been a fire as it isn't modeled (outside of burning vehicles) in CMBN...Bil?

Cool Thanks Capt! Sorry for your loses LOL.... but that engagement was very interesting with good information from, both sides.

ok cool about the fire.. just looked like it for a sec...

Also about SMG's for Tanker HQ's or something.. not gamey but it was their only real defense vs infantry they might have come accross while position the tank or even while out of their tank resting etc. It is very cool that you can mount and dismount them whenever you want.

I see some awesome scenerios in the making! "Achtung" Panzers!! I see crews being real friendly with the French etc until you hear the command... "Get to your bloody Tanks" as they quickly move from houses or something.. LOL

[ShakyJake]

Didn't the M-18 have the better 5x magnification optics, as well? That could account for part of the higher kill ratio, if it was simply a more precise gun platform.

[[hirr]Leto]

I am hoping all this talk of "gamey" play is all tongue in cheek, because if I have to put up with a near infinite list of "tactics" that fall under the rubric of "gamey", and an inconsolable stream of whining, complaining and any other flatulent litanies of "realism mongers" I will find a way to use the steel box version of the game to commit hari kari.

Are we to be so sensitive in the arena of war? Is not all fair?

; )

Thanks to Bil and the Cappie for the AAR. Looking good but it seems to me that tweaking is still required.

Cheers!

Leto

[The_Capt]

Leto;1243055']I am hoping all this talk of "gamey" play is all tongue in cheek, because if I have to put up with a near infinite list of "tactics" that fall under the rubric of "gamey", and an inconsolable stream of whining, complaining and any other flatulent litanies of "realism mongers" I will find a way to use the steel box version of the game to commit hari kari.

Are we to be so sensitive in the arena of war? Is not all fair?

; )

Thanks to Bil and the Cappie for the AAR. Looking good but it seems to me that tweaking is still required.

Cheers!

Leto

As true today as when it was written...amen

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=31210&highlight=lurker

[GhostRider3/3]

Ahh someone needs to come up with more AAR's... I cant wait for the bloody game, and screenshots and explenations of who did what, and what blew up is the only thing keeping me going right now. Need more! Need more screenshots of crazy Panzer troops almost carying out Special Ops missions! LOL

I feel like a kid at a Icecream shop...... More Please!

[tsword_new]

I've read the fine AAR with keen interest. I'm very interested in this sequel of the Combat Mission series.

Some questions to Bil_Hardenberger or The_Capt. Is the US-Tanks popping smoke done automatically or does it need a command ? For as it seems to me we are back with the old set gamey situation of tanks popping in and out of smoke and therefore reset the targetting cycle of the opposite side a very bad feature in my eyes.

As I understand it the M4 for instance has a type 60mm Launcher with which smoke grenades or maybe even HE-rounds can be shot. The smoke round contains phosphor which is quite nasty for the eyes and respiratory system when inhaled. The same basic system is also installed in german tanks though they mostly used it to launch small HE-grenades but also augmented the earlier used Nebelkerzen mounted at the turret or on the deck. To my knowledge smoke popping was used very seldom because in real life the benefit was minimal, because the time it needs to develop a full screen if at all... won't save one from the next round.

Another point. I also read the other AAR with the US attacking with a mixed grouping. In both this and the other AAR the M4A3s enjoyed a strange amount of luck of bouncing or absorbing rounds. It would be interesting to hear what damage each round did to M4s, we know it for the PzIVs already.

There was a discussion about the M4A3 (Mids, with the partially welded upper glacis) having something of an advantage at around 500 yards.

Now if we check the vulnerable area of the PzIV H vs. the M3 75 mm

From CMAK for the M3 Gun at 500 m:

ca. 96 mm at Normal, 76mm at 30° and 38mm at 60° (around 50-70 % or rounds will achieve this) we can suppose the PzIV being vulnerable for almost 100% of round to the turret if pointed to the shooter. The upper and lower glacis however is only marginally overmatched and already quite save when at a slight angle (20-30°). It was standard procedure to do this btw. when being in a firing position not intended to advance.

Here is the vulnerable area:

Notice only the turret is largely vulnerable.

For the M4A3 Mid (The one with old type glacis) things look much worse:

KwK40 L48 at 500m (from CMAK: 131mm at Normal, 101mm at 30°, 48mm at 60°). We can deduce that theoretically the M3's glacis should be quite safe at 56°, however the glacis is not a single piece.

Looking at the actual glacis things look much worse, here is the picture:

Here almost all of the turret and much of the Glacis because of the welding- and even screwed seams together with the vertical observation domes is actually very vulnerable to the KwK40 round leading to fatal high energy penetrations with lots of internal damage.

So in conclusion technically the PzIV would have the upper hand even at 500m. It is correct that once 1000m are reached the advantage becomes substantial because of the quite small 40 x 1.5m area being still very vulnerable and the much better gun (flatter trajectory).

In the M4A3 late with the 47° 2.5" untiled upper glacis things look much better and closely matches the PzIV. However the late was unlikely to have been in Normandy in quantity because the first prototypes were not finished before Feb. 1944.

So in light of this data I think the M4 and P4 should generate very similar results atleast at 500 m. The KwK40 round heavily overmatching the M4s turret as does the M3 Gun to the PzIV Turret. First round hits to the glacis might or might not penetrate for both the M4 and the PzIV but a good gunner might get it right the second time around.

Luck is bad company in a prolonged war....

Regards

Tsword

[Blackcat]

The Capt,

Thank you so much for posting that link. Brilliant at so many levels, your original post was so true and so well written it made me laugh like a drain. Then I scrolled down and read the first line of the post from Grog Dorosh. At that point, having coughed the content of my glass across my keyboard, I got told off by my wife for laughing so loud. 'Bless you.

[Blackcat]

Tsword,

Great post. Well up to the very best standards of the site.

P.S. Its a pity your imgaes didn't show up.

[Other Means]

tsword_new, the units have a "memory" now, so the targeting cycle is not completely re-set by the unit going out of LOS.

[stikkypixie]

Nice post Tsword, but why make conclusions from only 4 minutes of combat.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Some questions to Bil_Hardenberger or The_Capt. Is the US-Tanks popping smoke done automatically or does it need a command ?

...

Another point. I also read the other AAR with the US attacking with a mixed grouping. In both this and the other AAR the M4A3s enjoyed a strange amount of luck of bouncing or absorbing rounds. It would be interesting to hear what damage each round did to M4s, we know it for the PzIVs already.

...

Regards

Tsword

Damn good questions. Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to answer most of them....

I can say that smoke is automatic of course... and check out this post for some details on why the Shermans were so tough in this AAR: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1239443&postcount=303

Bil

[ClarkWGriswold]

Nice post Tsword, but why make conclusions from only 4 minutes of combat.

There was a lengthy discussion earlier in the thread about the hows and whys of the Shermans being able to withstand so many hits. So, it's not simply a response to a few minutes of combat as much as it's a response to half a thread full of explanation and discussion.

[stikkypixie]

There was a lengthy discussion earlier in the thread about the hows and whys of the Shermans being able to withstand so many hits. So, it's not simply a response to a few minutes of combat as much as it's a response to half a thread full of explanation and discussion.

I know, I followed it . It's just that those opening four minutes do not provide information to settle the discussion either way (not that it's not fun to banter this sort of stuff though until the game comes out).

[tsword_new]

Hopefully the pics show up now (atleast I can see em).

To the time of experience regarding the exchange results very true of course. But it would be very interesting to hear how detailed the calculations are done regarding such armor as in the M4A3 early-Mid (tiled etc.) . Is it calculated as a single fine piece of armor ? In that case the M4A3 Mid looks fine in the game in a way which is not in accordance with reality.

But nevertheless it's great to hear that the sequel finally did it.... !!! I will have it on my rig for sure.

[stikkypixie]

Hopefully the pics show up now (atleast I can see em).

To the time of experience regarding the exchange results very true of course. But it would be very interesting to hear how detailed the calculations are done regarding such armor as in the M4A3 early-Mid (tiled etc.) . Is it calculated as a single fine piece of armor ? In that case the M4A3 Mid looks fine in the game in a way which is not in accordance with reality.

But nevertheless it's great to hear that the sequel finally did it.... !!! I will have it on my rig for sure.

The pics work for me. As far as I understand it, the game model is used to determine the location of the impact and the corresponding angles. So if you see something bounce of the .50 machine gun (to say something wild) it's the machine gun that gets damaged and nothing else. As for the formulas to determine the actual effect of hit, only BFC knows, although it would be reasonable to assume that there is always some uncertainty factor factored in.

[Bil Hardenberger]

The formulas are all based off of Rexford's book. If you have that then you have a window into the inner workings of the game.

If not, then its all magic, like it is to me.

Seriously read the "explanation" post and the threads surorunding it and I think you'll have a better understanding of how the game does its calculations

Here it is again...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1239443&postcount=303

[stikkypixie]

The formulas are all based off of Rexford's book. If you have that then you have a window into the inner workings of the game.

If not, then its all magic, like it is to me.

Seriously read the "explanation" post and the threads surorunding it and I think you'll have a better understanding of how the game does its calculations

Here it is again...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1239443&postcount=303

I also read that thread. But I did not know where the formulas came from, thanks!

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry to bring it up again , thought I understood BFs position on the Strategic Layer (i.e you would never consider it due to development v return cost) but this statement appears to contradict previous.

Combat Mission will never have a "strategic layer" to it. This actually wasn't even what was being discussed. What was being discussed was a "command level" type game and the problems that go along with it. There's no relationship between these two concepts and neither are ever going to be in Combat Mission.

"Strategic layer" would be most akin to something like what Close Combat had, "command level" would be akin to something like the Panther Games and SSG games had. The latter were all at a higher level of command and therefore the concept of "command level" worked better for them than could ever work at CM's lower tactical level.

To the time of experience regarding the exchange results very true of course. But it would be very interesting to hear how detailed the calculations are done regarding such armor as in the M4A3 early-Mid (tiled etc.) . Is it calculated as a single fine piece of armor ? In that case the M4A3 Mid looks fine in the game in a way which is not in accordance with reality..

Here's a very long and detailed discussion about this:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=95485

The case was made that things in the game might be out of whack, but in the end that case didn't hold up after the detailed discussion.

Steve

[GhostRider3/3]

Well first off I want to thank the testors and the people from Battlefront with continuing the WWII Theatre.

Secondly I just wanted to say that the AAR between the Capt, and Bil was great. It is extremely difficult to determine any faults here with developing as this battle only lasted about 18min, and the ranges were pretty much 600m or less, which is pretty close, at least for German gunners who I am sure would have rather engaged at longer distances. I say that knowing that by 1944 the Germans had already encountered numerous Shermans previously wether in Africa, or Eastern Front, and would even by then have known by 1942 the capabilities of the T-34's 76mm gun and the Shermans 75mm gun... but that is just tactics that would have been passed around like many circulars in an office enviornment.... Distance is your friend!

So I really think that another engagement totaly not related to Normandy would have to be done to see the relative dynamics at hits over range, and who comes out better on average... (Probably been done though). I would think that the Germans would score more Kills at Long, Medium Ranges then at Short. This is of Course using the Regular 75mm Sherman vs The PzIV H. Then you would have to do it again using another type of Sherman... and we all know the 76mm Sherman has the edge most likely or is even with the likes of the PzIVH... An

Anyways just saying.... line them up at different ranges... and have at it... and repeat about 25 times.... I am positive the developers have already done this however... what can I say.. Its Monday here!

[Alan8325]

A "Command" level game

Haha, I wasn't hoping CM would turn into that. I was just saying that it wouldn't make sense to take player control away from units that are out of C2 unless there is more AI at that level that can do things like reposition in response to threats. Or another real person in the case of a multiplayer co-op addition.

[Paulverisor64]

A "Command" level game, as we call it, does not have have a commercially viable audience proportional to the development costs. I think even the people who SAY they want it wouldn't. OK, some would, but once it really sunk in that the game is just a passive experience almost the entire game, I think most people would tire of it and be done.

The worst part about this is the AI that would be necessary for such a game is massive. And that's just for it to be decent. Worse, people would bitch endlessly about how this or that unit did or didn't do what the player felt it should under the given circumstances.

Nope, it's a complete non-starter for us. We could put in a lot less time and effort with CoPlay (many people per side) yet have a far better end result that far more people would want to play.

Having said that, a Command Level game at a higher level is not as bad a thing to contemplate. The audience is still quite small, but if the game doesn't go down below Company or Battalion level, and the game system isn't that expensive (i.e. 2D top down) to make, it can be a viable product. People still bitch and complain about the AI though

Steve

What I'd really like to see is Combat Mission with the CoPlay in which the battle size would essentially be double the size to allow for a good 2vs2 matchup. I think something like that would be epic.

Will CoPlay be in the game anytime soon?