Armor ratings and CMBN

[LemuelG]

Question on this. How do the stats show? For example if I hit a tank causing the crew to bail I believe I don't actually get credited with a tank kill.

I had a zook team in my recon-element, they bravely disabled two StuGs (one engine-kill, one gun-damage/crew kill), forcing the crews to dismount, after which the German crews were dispatched by the other scouts. These heroes received no credit. Both empty/useless vehicles were eventually brewed-up by a game Sherman following the advance, the twat claimed both kills.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I had a zook team in my recon-element, they bravely disabled two StuGs (one engine-kill, one gun-damage/crew kill), forcing the crews to dismount, after which the German crews were dispatched by the other scouts. These heroes received no credit. Both empty/useless vehicles were eventually brewed-up by a game Sherman following the advance, the twat claimed both kills.

Isn't it like that in real life as well?

[De Savage]

As some one earlier posted I too would like "rough display of how good targetting is". It could be only hovering text "green, yellow or red" and text: "Good, Ok, Bad". Also if possible if would be nice to show "estimate of penetration". Example if you're firing 37mm AT gun from 500 meters against Sherman it could say "poor penetration".

That way new players could get rough visual aid at what distances and from WHAT ANGLE to fire. Penetration and target displey could depend how experienced troops are. So green troops might think "their hit is not going to penetrate" more often.

[Battlefront.com]

Very true. A mistake in the thickness of one of the Tiger's front plates is being fixed in the 1.01 patch. It took hours of testing to establish something was wrong. If we could see the raw stats it would have been apparent at a glace (and I suspect would never have made it past the beta stage).

The problem that has vexed wargaming, since the dawn of time, is data overload. Wargamers, even hardened ones, have different levels of tolerance for numbers. Most wargamers fit somewhere between the two extremes of "I've never met a number I don't like" and "numbers make me feel like I'm playing a spreadsheet". It's always a challenge for game designers to find the right balance.

For us, the problem is the numbers are pegged to individual parts of the models. Gone are the CMx1 abstractions of a handful of different components which have a singular rating. Which means it is not so easy to display without being overwhelming to probably 98% of the people playing the game.

That said, we do understand that there is a legitimate (to us, anyway!) complaint that we need to include something a bit more detailed. We had hoped to implement this sort of thing for CM:BN, but we were already so over schedule with the game we couldn't justify holding the game up for this sort of thing. Eventually some more detailed armor displays will make it into CMx2. It will be a compromise between the actual data and usability, but leaning more towards the data side of things. And it will be an optional display

Steve

[Narses]

The problem that has vexed wargaming, since the dawn of time, is data overload. Wargamers, even hardened ones, have different levels of tolerance for numbers. Most wargamers fit somewhere between the two extremes of "I've never met a number I don't like" and "numbers make me feel like I'm playing a spreadsheet". It's always a challenge for game designers to find the right balance.

For us, the problem is the numbers are pegged to individual parts of the models. Gone are the CMx1 abstractions of a handful of different components which have a singular rating. Which means it is not so easy to display without being overwhelming to probably 98% of the people playing the game.

That said, we do understand that there is a legitimate (to us, anyway!) complaint that we need to include something a bit more detailed. We had hoped to implement this sort of thing for CM:BN, but we were already so over schedule with the game we couldn't justify holding the game up for this sort of thing. Eventually some more detailed armor displays will make it into CMx2. It will be a compromise between the actual data and usability, but leaning more towards the data side of things. And it will be an optional display

Steve

Appreciate your efforts and responses.

[BadgerDog]

I came back here after many years of absence and bought CMBN to see how the game had advanced in detail and accuracy. I think Battlefront has done a really nice job, but the tank gunnery still needs improvement. The Panthers getting pretty consistent first round hits on a Sherman moving laterally across open country at top speed 5th gear at about 35-38 Mph is a reach.

Here's a very old thread I posted years ago on here when I was into CMBO, CMBB and CMAK, that I don't think exists any longer because of the change in board software, but I thought it still had some relevance as to this discussion of tank warfare for the period and how it's being modelled in CMBN….

I apologize for the length of this thread, but I being an old "tread head", vintage armor has always had a soft spot in my heart.. Let me qualify my statements, just so you know where my experience lays. I haven't driven or gunned a Sherman in over 40 years and I've only ever sat inside a stationary captured German WWII vintage Panther, MK IV and Jagdpanther at the RCAC Museum. I taught at the Royal Canadian Armored Corps gunnery school (Camp Borden) from 1963-65. That combined with an additional 2 years of in-field "grunt" experience as a Troop Sergeant, gives me some real world knowledge of at least the late 1940's and 1950's vintage M4A2E8 76mm Sherman tanks, which the Canadian Army was still using then. I also trained on the "then new" Centurion with the British 105 smooth bore gun that was just appearing for us canucks and had some brief introduction to the standard Panzer Leopard as the Canadian Army bought 50 of them from Germany.

A close personal friend of mine, we'll call "Gunner Harry", actually landed in a Sherman as a gunner at D-Day on June 6th, with the 6th Canadian Armored Regiment, The 1st Hussars. I served with him in this unit during the early 60's when he was still active. On another BBS related to tank warfare, a discussion as to the use of gyro stabilization on the Sherman's master weapon evolved from a statement that it was a post WWII invention and not a factor in actual combat. This was incorrect and the threads progressed as follows where I wrote:

"The gyro stabilization that was built into the Sherman M4 and was indeed used quite effectively against Panzer IV's and particularly later on against Tigers. The system built into them was exactly the SAME gyro stabilizer I personally fired from on the M4A2E8 version. Just to make sure that my memory hadn't completely faded, I dug out my old gunnery log book and checked for my MTR 'fire and movement' scores. I had achieved an average of 83% first round hits at ranges from 600-1,200 yards using this system with APDS. I telephoned my local friend, "Gunner Harry" who used this same gyro equipment in combat and he said "there's no way he would have ever wanted to take on Panzer IV's and Tigers without the ability to fire on the move". He also said that this was simply because most of his "tank to tank" engagements during the war tended to be up close and personal, under 1,500 yards. This was primarily due to the nature of the countryside (forested, hedge rows and hilly) where an enemy vehicle either waited in ambush till you were real close, then opened fire, or, both of you simply appeared in the open and surprised each other without any warning. I think many people often get confused about WWII tank warfare in France because they are so used to reading and seeing videos of the Arab/ Israeli wars of the 60's and 70's plus the Gulf War in the early 90's. They see lots of flat open tank engagements at extreme range distances."

Well, something began to bother me about the typical WWII engagement range my old Sherman vet gave me. Although some of you may think that 1,500 yds is actually quite short, I was a little suspicious because so much of my actual gunnery training in a Sherman M4A2E8 consisted of practicing live gunnery at 1,000 yds or less, quite often moving. So, I contacted Charles Lemons, who's the curator of the Patton Museum and got some interesting feedback.

This information comes from The Range and Angular Distribution of A.P. Hits on Tanks, Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground MD, December 1951 (Project TB3-1224B, Memorandum Report # 590)

This study was an analysis of the range and angular distribution of casualties and hits on tanks in WW II (NW Europe). It notes number of reported tank losses for 1st US Army, 3rd US Army, and the reports from the British Army.

"Mean engagement range for Allied tanks vs German tanks was 701 yards.

1st Army mean range was 760 yds

3rd Army mean range was 615 yds

British 2nd Army mean range was 644 yds

According to the charts 87% of all engagements resulting in casualties were at more than 200 yds, 65% was greater than 400 yds. However, only 2% were at ranges greater than 2000 yds.

It was noted in the report that the range at which most encounters took place was 330 yds - or half the average range. It also noted that most hits were on the front of the hull or turret for US Vehicles, but only for little more than 1/3 of the British tanks was this true.

Several things were concluded during the study:

1. Four of the five engagements between single tanks went to the tank that fired first.

2. One half of all casualties were caused by a single hit and the average number of hits per casualty was less than two.

3. German weapons could penetrate Allied armor, in most cases, out to 2000 yds, whereas Allied guns could perforate German armor only out to about 800 yds.

A Map study was also included for Northern Europe and it concluded that the average range that a tank could see another tank from any random point was

322 yards. The probability that a tank could see 1000 yards at any random point in Northern Europe was less than .05 (less than 5%). It was concluded that tank engagements in Europe was controlled by the terrain - thus limiting tank engagement ranges.

It also noted that in only 3 of 85 cases cited were the tanks actually engaging the gun that knocked them out. It also noted that in only 3% of the cases were the tanks able to return fire before becoming a casualty."

Well, after hearing this feedback, I phoned Gunner Harry back and asked him, "are you sure about that 1,500 yds?". He replied "that it was just a guess from a very old memory, but that he remembers most times they were so close you could easily read their turret markings, as well as there wasn't a great deal of need to aim the sighting telescope reticule pattern very often". hehehe

That suggests real up close and personal bore sighting and I would suspect from his visualization of turret markings that Gunner Harry over estimated the 1,500 yard range he provided me earlier. His actual engagements were most likely down in the ranges that were documented above by official army reports and Harry's old memory is perhaps a little off. God bless him anyway." (Update: Harry is now deceased ....)

Regards,

Doug

[Amizaur]

It was a great post with very interesting data cited ! Thanks !

[MikeyD]

I remember one CM enthusiast was all excited about getting out of CMSF with its one hit tank kills at 1500m+ and getting into Normandy where he could engage in "some real tank duels". I had to remind him that the les powerful WWII guns were accompanied by much shorter engagement ranges and thinner armor too. So he should probably expect about the same hit/kill ratios. PzIVs are not exactly uberweapons in 3-400m tank duels.

[McLargehuge]

My take? I don't miss all that info at all.

I don't think the average WW2 tanker had any of this information either, and if he had (and understood it) it wouldn't help them in the least. His platoon would be given a couple of Ronsons of varying degrees of effectiveness and be told "there's some Tigers or Panthers. Deal with them."

And that's what they'd do. hopefully to the best of their ability and with the hardware they were given. Period.

How would knowing your gun could penetrate x inches of steel at y range and your enemy has z inches of armor not be helpful in the least? I think what most people may want it for (at least the reason I would like to have it) is so I don't blow an ambush (or whatever scenario) by firing a weapon with 30mm of penetration for a given range at something with 40-50mm of armor facing me. I would also hope that armor penetration was something they taught a gun crew. I know they did armor penetration tests, so if that information wasn't passed on to the gun crews was it just for the enjoyment of some egg heads?

[BadgerDog]

As a Sherman gunner, we were trained with "AFV Recognitiion" charts to identify enemy vehicle threats, look them up in charts sitting next to the turret rotation wheel and based upon the "facing" of the target, decide ammo selection.

Usually the CC did this for the gunner and often "over rode" the turret traverse for target selection (using his cupola override lever), as he had a better SA view with his head on a swivel peeking out of the hatch.

So, it's not unreasonable to assume that German gunners were trained the same way and therefore, some in-game tool to simulate the ability to estimate chances of a hit success and type of damage based upon "facing" would be helpful and in my opinion, not be a cheat.

Regards,

Doug

[TrailApe]

Lieutenant Gorman, stymied by his inability to flick through his Enemy Armoured Fighting Vehicle Charts (W.O. pam 349a) in a timely fashion when faced with an unusually large tank, decided to keep things simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_Tiger_rammed.jpg

(if the picture doesn't work)

[BadgerDog]

Lieutenant Gorman, stymied by his inability to flick through his Enemy Armoured Fighting Vehicle Charts (W.O. pam 349a) in a timely fashion when faced with an unusually large tank, decided to keep things simple.

Great pic ...

Thanks ...

Regards,

Doug

[TrailApe]

Feel sorry for the driver don't you?

it'll give those that like the nuts and bolts of things under the bonnet/hood a new category of testing won't it?

"75% of M4A1's when driven into the side of a Panther ausf D (with the non face hardened RHA armour produced by krupp August-September 1944) caused extensive damage to the paintwork compared to the 63% of M4A2's - this runs counter to Steve Zaloga's findings and contrasts with that Osprey book - obviously this games is deeply flawed and unplayable!" :eek:

Of course it can go too far - I can imagine the little pixeltruppen driver of a Bren Carrier which has been lined up to plough into a Sturm Tiger, (all in the intersts of science mate - honest) just getting out in disgust and trooping off to the nearest NAAFI whilst muttering earthy language (enlisted men and junior NCO's - For the Use Of)

[YankeeDog]

How would knowing your gun could penetrate x inches of steel at y range and your enemy has z inches of armor not be helpful in the least? ...

From the training manuals I read, period gunners and tank crews were given some basic information about enemy armor, and what ranges and aspects were recommended when engaging certain enemy AFVs, but usually not anywhere near as detailed as "Your gun can penetrate x inches of steel at y range, and your enemy has z inches of armor." Cmx1's penetration charts were far more detailed than anything I've ever seen in an actual training manual from the period.

[MikeyD]

I recall a report to Eisenhower in 1945(!) filled with tanker anecdotes like "I fired from 600 yards and was horrified to see..." The phrase 'horrified to see' implies that contemporary tankers were not informed in detail about the capabilities of their own guns of of their opponents armor. Instructional AARs written following the Normandy fighting (mid July) make statements like "Our guns will not pierce a Panther front from over 400 yards" or similar generalities. The Brits appear to have done more detailed tests but I can't recall mention of the details filtering down into the hands of the soldiers. Remember, at the times Tommys were still referring to "Spandau" machineguns firing at them.

[Erwin]

Blimey, I recall Spandaus, Schmeissers and Lugers well into the early 60's before the correct names started to be used.