Why are we firing rifles at tanks?

[dieseltaylor]

oh well it may yet surface on the net : )

It always makes me wonder post-battle whether you can tell if there was an engine malfunction, the crew bail, and then the tank is destroyed - grenade down the hatch?, bazooka, 75mm tank gun. Must make it quite an iffy.

[Bradley Dick]

Definitely not World War II specific, but when I was in Iraq there were concerted efforts from insurgents to snipe TC's and anyone hanging out of an open hatch. If you see the big bulletproof glass enclosures around hatches now, that's why.

[womble]

Definitely not World War II specific, but when I was in Iraq there were concerted efforts from insurgents to snipe TC's and anyone hanging out of an open hatch. If you see the big bulletproof glass enclosures around hatches now, that's why.

Nobody's arguing that snipers going for exposed crew/passengers isn't both historical and tactically sound. They're observing (not making it up) that tanks (buttoned or unbuttoned) are apparently way to high up the game's infantry's target priority list for either historical accuracy or tactical validity.

[DaveDash]

The only problem I have with this is MG gunners exposing their position by shooting at unbuttoned armour.

However that is more a scenario designer/tactics problem (lack of cover arcs) than a game problem.

Can't say I've ever seen infantry open up with small arms at a tank from 400m+, ever. Snipers are the only exception.

[Battlefront.com]

Charles has checked the code and we've done some testing. Two things learned from this:

1. Small arms *NEVER* open fire on an AFV that is buttoned.

2. When they fire at unbuttoned AFVs it's because there's a decent chance of getting the TC. Test results show that this is working correctly because there's a lot of TC casualties from the shooting.

If someone has a save that clearly shows small arms happily plinking away at a buttoned tank, or an unbuttoned one with a very low chance of hitting effectively, let us know. Otherwise we see nothing to suggest there is a problem at all.

Steve

[Runyan99]

Well, I can send you the PBEM turn with the 4 man ammo team engaging an unbottoned Sherman head on with Kar 98ks at exactly 262 meters if you want it. I'm not sure where to send it.

I will agree the team does seem to switch targets once the tank buttons. However, if that is your definition of 'decent chance of hitting the TC', then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't like my chances in that engagement.

In CMBN bocage country, most engagements will be in the 100-500m range. I'm not sure where the 'decent chance' cuts off. In essence all small arms open up at any unbottoned tank in this game. If the player doesn't want infantry popping off at any and all armor targets, his only option would seem to be the Hide command. But then, they won't fire at infantry either.

Perhaps the 'decent chance' range currently used is simply a bit too large and could be shortened.

[Battlefront.com]

Against an unbuttoned tank? Nah, don't need saves of that because we intend it to happen. 200m is reasonably short range for a rifle. Charles' own test shows a high mortality rate of TCs at such ranges.

Ironically, JonS just posted a long interview with a US tank officer (usually a Platoon Leader). Here's an interesting relevant bit:

MH: Did your platoon take part in the breakthrough at St. Lo?

Alford: We sure did! My objective was to move down a road to take some high ground. I saw this as my first offensive tank move against the enemy and a real test of my leadership skills. We moved out after the bombing and found the enemy right where they had been before the bombing. My tanks were moving through a farmyard surrounded by stone buildings. When we went around the farmhouse, there was a company of German infantry deploying in an open field. I swung the automatic turret traverse so the gun was pointing at the enemy and gave the order to open fire. My gunner refused, saying I was mistaken and they were American infantry. Now, they had camouflage suits and "Jerry" helmets, so I repeated the order and added that I could see a whole lot better than he could. This exchange maybe took five seconds. While it was going on, I watched a German soldier fall prone upon the ground and aim his rifle at me. I thought to myself, "I bet he's going to try to shoot me."

MH: Did he try?

Alford: I felt pretty secure because only the top of my head--my eyes and my helmet--were out of the turret, but he was a good shot. The bullet struck the front of my helmet, and the only thing I can compare the feeling to is if someone hit you on the head with a 10-pound sledgehammer. I can't tell you what laws of ballistics or physics were at work, but that bullet went through the steel helmet, then followed the contour of the inner helmet liner across the top of my head and went out the back of the helmet at my neck. It knocked me into the turret. Then my gunner was willing to open fire.

MH: Still, you must have been seriously wounded.

Alford: I was stunned for a second but immediately felt my head expecting to kind blood and brains. The bullet carved some skin from the top of my skull and burned up the stash of toilet paper I kept tucked in the webbing of the liner. I had a hell of a headache for a few days. I got off real light. Two of my tank commanders weren't so lucky. They were also hit by snipers in that farm complex.

Authors: Steinway, Roger

Source: Military History, Oct97, Vol. 14 Issue 4, p46; , 7p, 2 Color Photographs, 6 Black and White Photographs

Document Type: Interview

Subject Terms: ALFORD, James – Interviews, INTERVIEWS

Abstract: Interviews 1st Lieutenant James P. Alford, who lead a platoon of five M4 Sherman tanks through the hedgerows of Normandy in 1944. How did he came to join the United States army; Views on leading a tank platoon in combat; Most dangerous position he had encountered.

Full Text Word Count: 5051

ISSN: 0889-7328

Accession Number: 9710210639

Database: Military & Government Collection

Steve

[dieseltaylor]

Its a good thing anecdote is not the basis for design?

However out of the number of shots fired at TC's [non-sniper] what was the success rate? And is this not a last ditch defence option caught as they were in an open field. And why, out of a company, were no other soldiers firing at the T/c? Was this guy the sniper?

[JG11Preusse]

WHAT?! This can't be true . . . or, if it is . . . it must be good for us. Battlefront has ten, twelve, twenty plus years of programming TacAI. Do not question this expertise.

Those riflemen are shooting for the optics . . . from 400 hundred yards away. You bet. Why not? Could happen! Not only that, the field manual says that this is a good and wise tactic. What more do you need to know?

Besides, I've seen British riflemen blow up PanzerIV's with one, well placed shot in Battleground Europe so . . . put that in your pipe and schmoke it! It happens. For real.

..... so you think that it is normal, that my 1 man anti-tank soldier, who had to sneak towards the tank to hit him with the at wep., moves forward and starts to shoot at the sherman with his k98 ? thats funny, isnt it ?

[gunnergoz]

Until we get properly working anti-armor/anti-infantry cover arcs, we'll continue to have this debate ad infinitum. There are some good reasons for infantry to fire small arms at AFV's under certain conditions and what seems to be a popular idea is that the Tac AI be "smarter" about when to do this, and when to avoid doing it.

When they do fix it, I also hope that they tweak the code so that an AT team does not fire its small arms at tanks, buttoned or not, unless the AT gunner in the team is also firing his primary weapon at the tank at the same time. Otherwise the small arms fire will prematurely give away the team's position, to their detriment.

In general, I don't mind small arms fire against tanks if it is likely to benefit the situation to my advantage. I have confidence that the Tac AI in the game will get better and better as we define the wrinkles in it and BFC smooths them out for us.

[womble]

Against an unbuttoned tank? Nah, don't need saves of that because we intend it to happen. 200m is reasonably short range for a rifle. Charles' own test shows a high mortality rate of TCs at such ranges.

How about ca. 800m? Couplea squads and an HMG buttoned up 5 shermans at that range, at least two of the locations were undiscovered until they opened up. I'd previously thought all the tanks were buttoned, and the small arms still firing, but it seems it took them a few turns to even get effective enough fire to convince the TCs to keep their heads down.

[gunnergoz]

I'm beginning to think that, if we want these examples of problematic behavior dealt with, we'd better accompany them with save files and maybe some screen grabs, or better yet some home-brewed test maps and saves. The BFC crew has its hands full dealing with the problems they can positively pin down and simply griping about something we've seen is just not helpful to anyone. I've been guilty generic b!tching like everyone else, but I have "seen the light" (and don't want to be "shown the door.")

[sand digger]

Its not just you firing at the exposed TC, its you and your full squad and whoever else might be able to get a bead on him. Volume fire. Infantry manuals say to shoot out the optics and shoot at the exposed crew. They don't say to cower and let him pass unmolested. A buttoned-up tank might not be able to spot you, especially with a shot-out periscope and dead TC bleeding all over the crew. An unbuttoned TC has a commanding view of the battlefield from 10 feet off the ground. He'll eventually spot you and kill you.

That's a very scripted situation, invariably as lots of people are saying here nothing happens to the tank and the infantry are killed. It also eliminates choices of action you the player may wish to consider, like sneaking a tank killer team up.

[Wengart]

2. When they fire at unbuttoned AFVs it's because there's a decent chance of getting the TC. Test results show that this is working correctly because there's a lot of TC casualties from the shooting.

Steve

What exactly are a lot of TC casualties, and more importantly what are the infantry casualties in return?

So far I've only confirmed 1 TC kill in my play time, although I could imagine it being slightly higher. But I've most certainly lost entire platoons engaging unbuttoned TCs.

The alacrity at which infantry engages armor is more than a little absurd right now. I literally cannot leave my men without a restrictive cover arc if there is armor within 800+ meters of them.

Edit: Even if troops were effectively engaging TCs is that even a good thing? Usually tanks work together, where there is one there are probably more, so an infantry squad that exposes itself to kill a TC would be subjected to HE eradication by the other tanks.

[Fetchez la Vache]

That's a very scripted situation, invariably as lots of people are saying here nothing happens to the tank and the infantry are killed. It also eliminates choices of action you the player may wish to consider, like sneaking a tank killer team up.

I fully concur with this. I think opening up on tanks (inc. targeting of the TC) with small arms should only be a result of a positive target by the player.

I have also only seen 1 TC casualty from my time playing. Currently I find that moving in an unbuttoned AFV into a field simply a good way of getting all the enemy to reveal themselves to me. I feel this is rather unrealistic and bordering on "gamey" as things stand.

[dieseltaylor]

I have also only seen 1 TC casualty from my time playing. Currently I find that moving in an unbuttoned AFV into a field simply a good way of getting all the enemy to reveal themselves to me. I feel this is rather unrealistic and bordering on "gamey" as things stand.

Cunning stuff! : )

[Vark]

Germans used smokeless powder, how can a buttoned TC locate an infantry unit from 800m using narrow field of view/magnification optics, sound location? Bit unhappy to hear that infantry will not enage buttoned armour, Russian MG's would shoot at the cupolas to damage periscope glass and allow better chances for tank hunters to stalk the advancing tank. There is a German Panther training film that shows this (of course with typical teutonic coolness the TC changes it) but I doubt something like that would be included in a training film if it was a very rare incident. ATR's shot at the cupolas/periscopes because there was a chance of seriously injuring the TC/Driver with glass shards.

[dieseltaylor]

Vark - I thought the difference would be that your troops would not fire without orders on a tank. Seems reasonable. And I strongly suspect historically accurate.

[womble]

Germans used smokeless powder, how can a buttoned TC locate an infantry unit from 800m using narrow field of view/magnification optics, sound location?

It's not just the tank you have to worry about. They usually come with some little friends who have binoculars, radios and metric f**k-ton of HE to drop on poor Fritz/Jonny's heads. AFAIK, everyone used 'smokeless' propellant in their small arms, but also AFAIK, 'smokeless' is a term relative to the clouds of sulphurous fumes that black powder weapons generated. There's also muzzle flash, those magnifying optics you've mentioned and the sneaky FO's radio contact.

Bit unhappy to hear that infantry will not enage buttoned armour...

Given the results in-game, I'm pretty pleased that this is the case.

...Russian MG's would...

And maybe the TacAI will be adjusted to reflect this once the Ostfront titles start coming out.

[siffo998]

There is a German Panther training film that shows this (of course with typical teutonic coolness the TC changes it) but I doubt something like that would be included in a training film if it was a very rare incident.

yeah that saved my day...teutonic coolness... allways thought that we germans are known in foreign countries for our total prussian stiffness...correctness...and of course for total accuracy (time). but teutonic coolness... thats something new to me... cool to hear that we are not everywhere considered to be that stiff idiots...

oh and here is the link to the training film: 1:24 onwards...

(already posted it some time ago...)

oh and i seriously dont think that shots from an atr would injure the tc or driver from glass shards... those optics using angled mirrors...so even when someone directly hits the mirror pointing outwards the lower inward mirror would not be affected.

teutonic coolness... love it...

[bodkin]

I don't think there's any argument that snipers at least were used effectively against tank commanders in Normandy. The argument that matters to most in this thread is the cost benefit outcomes of infantry firing at tanks in CMBN.

For the possible consequences to infantry squads in the game, the benefits of knocking off a commander seem dangerously expensive. I'd be happy if this behaviour was just restricted to snipers.

[Vark]

Siffo, thought vision blocks for drivers were just that, solid lumps of armoured glass which the driver peered through. Don't know about the protection of periscopes for the TC but the Tigers cupola was redesigned after as it was too easily hit and I've also read of accounts of TC's being seriously injured due to splintering glass, though on reflection a 45mm shell would care little for which mirror was angled!

Glad you liked the Teutonic coolness angle: watch that clip and tell me if it is not the epitomy of coolness under fire. Hey, my periscopes shattered, hey, a tank rider has climbed on board, hey somebody tried to throw an AT grenade at us and best of all, hey, the engine deck is on fire (granted his Vulcan-like cool is a little ruffled at this prospect but I guess engine fires were nothing new to a Panther crew!) Each incident is dealt with Teutonic efficiency (sorry had to lapse into stereotypes) but also a remarkable lack of emotion, funny it's one of the first things that struck me, the portrayal of Germanic machine like efficiency, no human tell tale signs of weakness.

DT take your point, in CM1 you could direct an MG to fire on a buttoned target but it would give us after one burst and hunt for something easier.

Womble, I've read accounts of infantry being pinned down for hours by HMG's and being only able to approximate their positions. Secondly any infantry near a tank run the risk of being affected by the tanks inherent 'bullet-magnet' status, which might be a good reason for the HMG's to open up in the first place, as the accompanying infantry often bunched up behind the armour. Talking of black powder, I used to go to a gun club and when shooting opposite black powder guns often, in a still/low wind would find it difficult/impossible seeing my target!

[argie]

Could be an issue related to the level of play? I find no consistent strange behavior at Iron Level in two campaigns so far.

My infantry only fired at unbuttoned tanks or AFVs which actually have people exposed (for instance, an Scout Team took one by one all the guys in a Marder, from behind).

They fired with everything they had only at really close ranges (with the tracks over their feet, so to speak). MGs only to unbuttoned vehicles at long ranges. They received far more fire from infantry than from the AFVs, which seems to forget them after a few shots.

In lower levels, the AI can see the full unit and then fires until final destruction?

[Michael Emrys]

It's not just the tank you have to worry about. They usually come with some little friends who have binoculars, radios and metric f**k-ton of HE to drop on poor Fritz/Jonny's heads. AFAIK, everyone used 'smokeless' propellant in their small arms, but also AFAIK, 'smokeless' is a term relative to the clouds of sulphurous fumes that black powder weapons generated. There's also muzzle flash...

Maybe not everybody used smokeless. I read at least one account by a guy who jumped into Normandy with the 101st. who made a point of mentioning that the Germans had a significant advantage in that they used truly smokeless powder while the Americans apparently only had reduced-smoke powder which put them at a disadvantage.

OT: The USN had a somewhat similar problem. In the night combat in the Solomons, it was noticed that the Japanese ships were using flashless gun propellant whereas the muzzle flash of the USN ships could be seen for scores of miles.

Michael

[womble]

Womble, I've read accounts of infantry being pinned down for hours by HMG's and being only able to approximate their positions.

Indubitably. The infantry are handicapped by their low-level POV (really low level if they don't want their heads ventilated ) and reluctance to move in case they leave the protective cover they're skulking behind. A tank can look around itself with near impunity (though somewhat squinty eyes) when under fire from small arms.

Secondly any infantry near a tank run the risk of being affected by the tanks inherent 'bullet-magnet' status, which might be a good reason for the HMG's to open up in the first place, as the accompanying infantry often bunched up behind the armour.

You can generate special cases until the cows come home. The game still punishes the bejazus out of troops that open up on a human-controlled combined-arms force. There are almost always multiple sets of eyes separated from the armour which will rapidly localise the origin of fires and direct HE/volumes of small arms onto those origins. And if there aren't, then perhaps the user of the armour deserves to have their tin overcoats taken away by sneaky men with rocket launchers/ATG

Talking of black powder, I used to go to a gun club and when shooting opposite black powder guns often, in a still/low wind would find it difficult/impossible seeing my target!

Yeah, it's good at obscuring

Maybe not everybody used smokeless. I read at least one account by a guy who jumped into Normandy with the 101st. who made a point of mentioning that the Germans had a significant advantage in that they used truly smokeless powder while the Americans apparently only had reduced-smoke powder which put them at a disadvantage.

Oo, that's interesting. Wonder if that difference is included in CMBN's spotting algorithms? Still, there must be some way that a team 'just firing' gives itself away, else we wouldn't see those "?" icons.

OT: The USN had a somewhat similar problem. In the night combat in the Solomons, it was noticed that the Japanese ships were using flashless gun propellant whereas the muzzle flash of the USN ships could be seen for scores of miles.

That's cool to know too. Ta!