Accuracy of tanks firing on the move.

[slysniper]

Sherman 75 gun actually had a reputation as a pretty solid, accurate gun. Patton fought against bringing both the 76mm and 90mm cannons into the theater in favor of the 75 (admittedly he was crazy). 76mm APCR and 17 pounder APDS both had nagging problems with accuracy - like the rounds were either accurate or they went ZOOM! into outer space! Plus their HE rounds were comparatively lackluster. Sherman 75's problem wasn't really accuracy, it was hole-punching power.

No Patton was not crazy, he knew a simple fact. His tanks were fighting infantry and AT guns, he tanks had all they needed for the task and the gun was more reliable, could get ammo stock easier and so forth.

The truth is, the allies in general were not running into enemy tanks all that much, it was other anti tank assets that were the problem. When they did run into heavy armor, he knew his tanks were at a disadvantage and men and equipment would be lost. But with 10-1 odds, they could out manuver and still remove the treat. If not, then it was time for air power, or heavy arty or bringing up tanks or armor with the 76's. All of which the Americans had.

He understood the fact, that you did not need the best tank to win the battle.

[skelley]

Sherman 75 gun actually had a reputation as a pretty solid, accurate gun. Patton fought against bringing both the 76mm and 90mm cannons into the theater in favor of the 75 (admittedly he was crazy). 76mm APCR and 17 pounder APDS both had nagging problems with accuracy - like the rounds were either accurate or they went ZOOM! into outer space! Plus their HE rounds were comparatively lackluster. Sherman 75's problem wasn't really accuracy, it was hole-punching power.

A gun with shorter barrel and lower velocity has to crank the barrel higher putting more arc and allowing wind to affect it even more. I agree that they were the best infantry support tank during the war.

I just ran another test at 2400m for 30 minutes. Shermans fared a little better. 6 Shermans lived, 9 PzIVs lived. The crews of the surviving PzIVs did pretty bad. Most had at least 1 dead with 1 only having 2 survivors. All tanks had their optics just about destroyed. All tanks were almost out of AP.

I can't stress enough how much the Sherman's smoke gives a huge advantage to the PzIVs. Half the company is covered by smoke leaving the rest to fend off the whole company of Panzers. I strongly believe that without the smoke it would have been an even matchup.

[Bastables]

PIV has doing badly against Shermans since CMAK. The 7,5cm Sherman gun was medium velocity one at about 620m/s compared with the KwK 40's 750m/s. Proper high velocity should be reserved for the APCR shot and the long 75 and 88 that approach or breech 1000m/s. One of the US m61 7,5cm APC shells had tracers to help adjusting fall of shot.

I don't think the velocity difference is so great that it would affect aming as MickeyD pointed out the 75 was never criticised for being inaccurate it just had issues dealing with the "new" german armour in the guise of Panthers, Tigers and Jadjpanzers.

Remember everyone initially settled on the Sherman 75 because it was so effective at killing Mark IV and III specials in the North African desert.

[Bastables]

No Patton was not crazy, he knew a simple fact. His tanks were fighting infantry and AT guns, he tanks had all they needed for the task and the gun was more reliable, could get ammo stock easier and so forth.

The truth is, the allies in general were not running into enemy tanks all that much, it was other anti tank assets that were the problem. When they did run into heavy armor, he knew his tanks were at a disadvantage and men and equipment would be lost. But with 10-1 odds, they could out manuver and still remove the treat. If not, then it was time for air power, or heavy arty or bringing up tanks or armor with the 76's. All of which the Americans had.

He understood the fact, that you did not need the best tank to win the battle.

No Patton was crazy in passing up the chance to equip his formations with a weapon that would gain some measure of parity and save the lives of his men. And that was why the call for the 76 was so strident after heavy losses in places like Normandy and the Bulge. Both Campaigns were allied victories could it have been done cheaper and with less losses. Considering the UK with a much smaller industrial base was able to have at least one 17pdr equipped Sherman per platoon by the time they hit the beaches begs the question why something similar was not done for American tankers.

You;ll note when evidence began piling up Patton had 76mm armed shermans directed his units to remove sand bags and then start welding additional steel plates to the front of shermans. Dodgy arguments of I'll let someone else like the airforce or artillery don't come into it. He was wrong and he changed his mind when it became clear how wrong.

[dieseltaylor]

There is an old saw that during WW2 it took 13 shots to hit an enemy tank at 1500 metres, in the fifties[?] 3 shots, and now one shot.

Unfortunately though I have read it I have never seen the research behind the figures. But I do believe they were stationary tanks.

[gunnergoz]

Remember everyone initially settled on the Sherman 75 because it was so effective at killing Mark IV and III specials in the North African desert.

That may be true of the Brits, but only marginally. They were thinking ahead to their own 17 pdr even then.

The American Ordnance and Armored Force generals stuck with the 75mm gun on the M3 and later M4 because of its known HE prowess more than any other factor. It was never envisioned in American army doctrine of the day as an anti-tank weapon except as a last resort of self-defense. Anti-tank duty was reserved for the 37mm then 57mm and finally the 3" guns of the Tank Destroyers. Recall that the Sherman was first and foremost designed as an exploitation tank, intended to enlarge breakthroughs and rampage in the rear killing artillery, etc.

We today make a big mistake if we try to equate the Sherman to the Pz III, IV, Panther or Tiger. It was never meant to go up against the like of them. We know today that the best AT weapon is another tank but that was far from obvious to the US Army generals who designed the army and weapons that fought 1941-45.

[Georgie]

Thanks dieseltaylor for the links, read them both. In one of the links Captcliff gives a link back to the year 2000 and it was interesting. A much milder Steve, I'm sure that if you are an administrator these forums will wear on you, of Battlefront made several posts and they were interesting and informative to read. I read Steve's post in this thread but he didn't address the "firing on the move" question.

[gunnergoz]

No Patton was crazy in passing up the chance to equip his formations with a weapon that would gain some measure of parity and save the lives of his men. And that was why the call for the 76 was so strident after heavy losses in places like Normandy and the Bulge. Both Campaigns were allied victories could it have been done cheaper and with less losses. Considering the UK with a much smaller industrial base was able to have at least one 17pdr equipped Sherman per platoon by the time they hit the beaches begs the question why something similar was not done for American tankers.

You;ll note when evidence began piling up Patton had 76mm armed shermans directed his units to remove sand bags and then start welding additional steel plates to the front of shermans. Dodgy arguments of I'll let someone else like the airforce or artillery don't come into it. He was wrong and he changed his mind when it became clear how wrong.

A lot of American WW2 generals were caught up in the fallacy that tanks were not the best anti-tank weapon, Patton included. Remember that Patton had a great influence in the early US armored force and commanded the 2nd Armored Division for a while.

Part of the problem was faulty intelligence. Evidence from the 1940 French campaign was really inconclusive, at least to the American generals. The African campaign and the later ones in Sicily and Italy showed tanks fighting in unusual conditions not likely to be replicated on the European continent where the invasion would eventually take place. Not many American generals were looking at the Tiger as anything except a rare assault tank and the Panther was originally evaluated in the same category. It came as a shock when the Americans finally figured out, in mid-44, that the Panthers were now half the complement of the German panzer divisions - in other words, that it was their mainstream new battle tank.

The push against the 76mm gun was there from the beginning and not just Patton was behind it. They did not want tankers to become involved in tank vs tank battles but to save their assets for the breakout and exploitation phase that the Sherman was designed for. They had the Tank Destroyer Force to tackle the enemy armor. That was the doctrine and they stuck with it until it was proven fatally flawed in the Summer of 1944 in the fighting in France. The Ordnance Department had prepared designs for 76mm Shermans in 1942 and they could have been fielded in '43, but no one was really interested...until they ran into the German panzer buzzsaw in Normandy.

In part, the American tank design effort in WW2 was hobbled by a lack of scientific evaluation of the evidence and a faulty interpretation of the facts in front of them. It is a credit to the resiliency of the American army that they were able to take off their doctrinal blinders, adapt to reality and field a successful design like the M26 eventually, but by then the war was over in Europe.

[dieseltaylor]

In what respect do you think the industrial lobby in the US were influential in maximising their production run? If I were a producer and made a profit per tank I would not wish for any thing that would reduce my production rate.

As to lessons from history - when a war starts with tanks using 40mm and 37mm with x armour and the trend is more armour and bigger guns each year you might just think that up-gunning at least would be necessary. The Churchill, your Allies not so good tank has armour that will defeat the 75mm reasonably well!. Anyway as we can Blue on Blue the game will be interesting for these match-ups : )

[Major SNAFU]

Setting tanks up facing each other and then seeing who "wins" is not a valid way to compare the accuracy of gun systems.

So, Within the constraints of CMBN, what would be the correct set of tests to perform?

[Magpie_Oz]

Remember everyone initially settled on the Sherman 75 because it was so effective at killing Mark IV and III specials in the North African desert.

Not really. It was vaunted because it was able to deal with the German AT guns, the main tank killer in the desert, because it had a highly effective HE round, something the 8th Army had not really had up to that point and with good armour could sit back out of range of the German guns and shell them.

Tank v Tank was not really the thing in North Africa, largely because Rommel knew he would lose out pretty quick as his Panzers would trade 1 for 1 with the Brits and the Brits had more tanks.

In Normandy however it was found that the main tank killer was other tanks and a scramble to up gun ensued.

[akd]

So, Within the constraints of CMBN, what would be the correct set of tests to perform?

At a minimum, no wind, good visibility, regular/normal crews ( or max skill if testing absolute accuracy), gun and target isolated in firing lanes with no visibility into adjacent lanes, target prevented from firing back or changing position (there are a few ways to approach this), and "typical" size target (M4A3 or Pz IV would probably be good). For useable data from the above: at least 100 individual gun target tests minimum. To keep the test manageable, I would do 20 lanes and repeat test scenario five times. For each individual gun/target interaction per lane and per test run, results of each shot should be recorded in order (hit, miss long or miss short), i.e.:

1st shot - miss long

2nd shot - miss short

3rd shot - hit

4th shot - hit

Etc.

Likely I'm missing something important, but I think that should provide usable data. To make a meaningful case for change (if you think the results are off), this data would probably need to be comparable to well-sourced historical test data.

[Charlie Marlow]

In what respect do you think the industrial lobby in the US were influential in maximising their production run? If I were a producer and made a profit per tank I would not wish for any thing that would reduce my production rate.

As to lessons from history - when a war starts with tanks using 40mm and 37mm with x armour and the trend is more armour and bigger guns each year you might just think that up-gunning at least would be necessary.

And the Brits fielded the Cromwell with a 75 mm gun in October of 43. Was the industrial lobby in the UK responsible for an undergunned tank that late in the war?

[Calibration]

And the Brits fielded the Cromwell with a 75 mm gun in October of 43. Was the industrial lobby in the UK responsible for an undergunned tank that late in the war?

Of course (as I'm sure you know the answer to your own question) the responsibility ultimately lay with the Army brass who needed to provide clear directions to the organisations responsible for supplying it with the military equipment it needed. Unfortunately there was no clear vision. The UK Tank Board went through 5 different chairman and numerous changes of members in four years. Such an environment does not lead to an efficient upgrade path. Of course, with hindsight, one can always point out how things could have been better and there were external circumstances at times which slowed the upgrade process down, such as the loss of equipment in 1940 which kept the 2-pdr in production longer than would have occured otherwise. The problem with the adoption of the 17-pdr is they tried to shoehorn it into available chassis without much success (Firefly excepted) and wasted a lot of design effort in the process. The decision to design a dedicated chassis to the gun, the A41 (Centurion) wasn't taken until late 1943 and over a year after the gun was first introduced. It is not unreasonable to say they could have had the tank earlier and in time to see action.

[Charlie Marlow]

Thanks for the response. Actually, I figured it was probably it was general administrative incompetence and inertia, with a dash of pig-headedness thrown in. Sort of like the US being slow in getting bigger guns into action. My remark was really directed at a poster who prefers to see evil capitalism and war profiteers at work, where bureaucratic slowness is the more likely answer.

[Oddball_E8]

Didnt this thread used to be about the surprisingly high accuracy of tanks firing on the move in a WWII game?

i seem to recall something about that here in this thread long long ago...

[Magpie_Oz]

Thanks for the response. Actually, I figured it was probably it was general administrative incompetence and inertia, with a dash of pig-headedness thrown in. Sort of like the US being slow in getting bigger guns into action. My remark was really directed at a poster who prefers to see evil capitalism and war profiteers at work, where bureaucratic slowness is the more likely answer.

It really had little to do with bureaucracy and administration but rather a number of factors coming into play.

From various sources the reasons for Britian's lagging in armour development were

1. Total loss of equipment after Dunkirk requiring emphasis on rebuilding over redesigning.

2. Dispersion of design effort by designing tanks for tasks, Infantry, Cruiser etc (similar to the US idea of tanks and tank destroyers)

3. Emphasis on mechanical reliability over other tank factors. After the maligning of designs such as the Crusader efforts into mobility overshadowed armour and firepower.

4. Experience from North Africa putting the notion that the killer of tanks were AT Guns and hence high HE shell performance and rate of fire were more important than AntiTank capability. (Much like the US idea of Tanks for the infantry and TD's for the enemy tanks.)

5. The British rail system limiting the width of their tanks and therefore the size of the turret ring and therefore the gun.

5. There was some confusion on the part of the Tank board etc but for the most part it was due to a lack of focused direction, i.e. what was a better tank.

The Cromwell, which was in reality a 1942 era tank, was fielded with a 75mm Gun largely to fit in with the US supplied tanks and for it's superior HE capability over the better AT capability of the 6lbr. The Cromwell was developed into the Comet, by adding extra armour and a better gun much like the M4 development program. It entered service in Dec44 and was considered by some the equal of the Panther.

[MG TOW]

Talk to a Scorpion light tank gunner, or a Cougar AVGP gunner. The closest modern day example to a WW2 tank are these "training tanks"... if you can't find an actual sherman gunner. I did, and I asked him about firing on the move. They will tell you a lateral shot while moving, from their 76mm pumpkin launcher is a waste. The commander orders a stop before the gunner fires.

[gunnergoz]

Thanks for the response. Actually, I figured it was probably it was general administrative incompetence and inertia, with a dash of pig-headedness thrown in. Sort of like the US being slow in getting bigger guns into action. My remark was really directed at a poster who prefers to see evil capitalism and war profiteers at work, where bureaucratic slowness is the more likely answer.

Yes, there was really not much corporation input into American tank design in those wartime days - more of their expertise in mass-production, assembly-line and component design which was relevant and often tapped. Tank design was almost exclusively the realm of the Ordnance Dept, which often put forward designs that neither The Armored Force nor Army Ground Forces asked for...like the 76mm Sherman in '42, and the ill-fated M6 heavy. Ordnance was often accused of pie-in-the-sky design work (e.g. the T28 Superheavy tank) which no one except Ordnance seemed to want in the end.

Anyway, I think further discussions of this stuff should go to a different thread since I'm curious to see how the fire on the move topic proceeds in this one.

[Lt Bull]

Seems this topic of tannk main gun accuracy has kind of been split between two recent threads. I have already added comments to the other thread (Tank Accuracy....) but now realise that my comments were probably better suited to this thread based on the thread title alone. For the sake of being concise, I will repeat my comments here then report on some findings of tests I have since carried out:

I know this topic has been discussed quite a bit (here, in the past and elsewhere) . I want to add my own take as I can't recall it ever being really mentioned.

First a few basics we all agree with (or should):

with all other things being equal...

-ANY WW2 tank firing while stationary will always be more accurate than one that is moving.

-It is easier to target/hit a moving tank from a stationary tank than target/hit a stationary tank from a moving tank.

Now something which really is "naturally" modelled in tank sim games (Red Orchestra/Darkest Hour is an adequate example) and NOT specifically modelled in any other games like CMBN AFAIK is....

-when attempting to fire from a moving tank, the following two factors ALL contribute to the increased difficulty of aiming at and hitting a target at any range:

a) the speed of the moving tank

and (this is a big one)

the terrain on which the tank is currently moving over

Most games/simulations like CM seem to just consider a) and completely disregard .

It may be possible that trying to aim and hit a target from a tank moving at 30km/h on a smooth flat road is easier than trying to hit the same target from the same tank moving at 2km/h on a very rough/rocky/undulating surface.

As far as I know CM (or any other game) has never considered the terrain a tank is currently moving on when determining it's ability to aim and hit targets. However I do wonder HOW the game deals with targetting while moving over shellholes for example....I might do a test. The result will be most telling.

It seems quite evident and obvious when you think about it, even more apparent when you put yourself in the virtual gunners seat in games/tank sims (like Red Orchestra/Darkest Hour) and try to aim/hit at targets through the main gun optics while the tank is even slowly moving over rough terrain (as opposed to smoother terrain). Based on this experience alone, I would say that the ability to aim and hit targets from a moving tank could quite possibly be virtually impossible given the terrain tank is on, no matter how fast/slow the tank is moving. The amount of shudder (especially when viewing through high mag optics) could make things next to impossible.

Between different tanks, the chances to aim/hit targets while moving would depend on :

a) the FOV, magnification/accuracy/quality of the sights

the gun targeting traverse/elevation control system of the tank (speed, responsiveness, resolution etc)

c) any aids like gyro stabilzers

d) the weight of the tank (relates to how e) affects things). Generally heavier tanks would have a "smoother" ride as their sheer weight and momentum would prevent surface undulations from being as significant and issue when compared to lighter tanks.

e) the type of suspension gear on the tank (essentially affecting the relationship between how the optics shake/shudder/move in relation to the terrain being traversed). Good suspension can "dampen" out lots of macro and micro oscillations that are picked up by what the tracks come in contact with and make targeting while moving easier. Crappy suspension may make the BEST optical/targeting mechanism next to useless when even moving at snails pace..

Now I have since carried out a few "tests" using the scenario editor (as you do) to determine if the TYPE OF SURFACE a tank is moving over affects it's ability to hit targets while on the move. As far as I am concerned, this factor alone in reality (as explained above) would be a MAJOR factor in determining how readily/accurately tank gunners could aim and hit targets while on the move.

The results so far are quite compelling. I intend to do more variant tests but there is enough here to discuss for the meantime.

First of all, l will discuss the "tests" I set up:

• I created a plain FLAT "firing range" approximately 1790m in length. I divided the firing range in to separate "firing lanes" by running a line of high hedgerows the length of the map. LOS is therefore just restricted to the confines of each firing lane. The map I created has 7 lanes, could add more later if needed.
  

• Next I placed a US tank (M4A3, all normal/regular crew stats) up one end of each of the firing lanes and a German tank (PzIVH) up the other (spaced ~1780m apart). I chose the Sherman tank as the "subject" and the PzIVH as the "target". To make the PzIVH "passive targets" I immobilized them, made their crew motivation "fanatical" (to minimise baailing out), faced them AWAY from the Shermans and gave them short covered arcs again in the opposite direction of the Shermans. (NOTE: Was happy for the sake of this test that at no time in any of my tests did any of the PzIVH crew break from their covered arc order, rotate their turret and engage the Shermans. In an actual game, such TacAI behaviour might be questionable.)
  

• I now assign all the Shermans short covered arcs and process a few turns until ALL the Shermans eventually spot the PziVH target at the end of their firing lane.
  

• I now delete the covered arc commands from the Shermans and give each Sherman a "Move" command directly towards the PzIVH target at the other end of the firing lane and observe what happens.
  

I have run this test a few times and observed how changing the map SURFACE over which the Shermans are moving on affects their ability to hit the PzIVH targets as they move towards them. I did not give the Shermans specific "Target" orders but let them engage at will.

TYPE OF SURFACE: Grass

All Shermans begin stationary about 1780m away from their target. The gunner in each tank seems to start aiming after about 8 seconds in to the turn, having travelled about 25m (range to target ~1755m). Approx 10 sec later they all start firing their first shots (range now ~1715m).

From this point onwards they fire off a volley once ~14-15 sec reducing their range to target by ~67m (travelling @ a constant 4.5m/sec). That's 4 rounds fired every 60sec turn, travelling a total of ~270m.

For the moment I will not discuss the details of these results, and just tell you what I conclude when I compare this test to other surfaces.

TYPE OF SURFACE: Rocky Red

The Sherman speed when given the Move order over this terrain is slightly slower than when on default grass. Realistically the rough surface it is supposed to represent could possibly make aiming at targets at range potentially impossible, at least HARDER than if travelling on grass. The texture even tries to give the impression that it is "rough terrain" by having sharp rocky projections coming from it. Is it really rough?

However, based on early observations, there is no OBVIOUS difference (not of the kind I would realistically expect) between the to hit accuracy while moving of the tanks moving over the GRASS and those moving over the ROCKY RED. So really the "rough" terrain this tile is meant to represent may as well just be considered "flat" for this discussion.

But there is ANOTHER test that paints a completely different (and as far as I am concerned) a much more realistic picture of how the surface being travelled on SHOULD affect the aim/to hit ability of a moving tank.

TYPE OF SURFACE: Grass + "15L" craters

This cratered terrain, (unlike other surface types like "Rocky Red") PHYSICALLY alters the surface over which the craters are placed. You can watch the tanks (and their barrels) undulate and roll etc as they move across this landscape. Understanding that CMx2 models every shot etc, I really thought it would be strange if this DIDN'T drastically affect things.

It was certainly reassuring then to find that the Shermans moving over this terrain, firing at the same rate as before, actually seem to have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of hitting the target downrange when moving. I have yet to detect even ONE hit! (I haven't tested closer than say 500m however).

This is the kind of DRASTIC (impossible chance) difference I expected to see in the "to hit" accuracy of tank firing while moving over rough terrain.

So I conclude this so far:

• There is nothing really "rough" about CMBN "rough" terrain tiles when it comes to affecting the firing platform mechanics of tanks moving across them. They may as well be moving along grass tiles. CMBN does not seem to "abstract" the effect of moving over "rough" terrain tiles when it comes to gun accuracy.
  

• Only the "physical" undulations you see on the map which in turn actually affect the the physical orientation of the tank as it moves across, and not any abstracted terrain surface type tile, affects the tanks ability to target while moving in the way you would expect it to in RL.
  

It would be interesting to see how CMBN played out IF the terrain tiles that imply they have a certain surface "texture"/"roughness" (like "rocky red', "rough", "cobblestones" etc) actually modified the terrain surface in the same way craters do, in turn affecting the motion of the vehicles moving over it and consequently the accuracy of firing while on the move, in the same drastic way moving over cratered terrain currently does. Would "firing while on the move" calcs be "automatically" accounted/look after themselves?

I got a bunch of other "firing while moving" tests I have i mind.

- same as above tests but driving down a constant incline

-firing while moving laterally (not directly at target).

-compare the gyro-stabliser equiped Sherman "fire while moving" results with those of German tanks.

Will let you know as I do them.

For what it's worth, I am making available to you the "scenario templates" and the "start of test" saved files of the tests I have done so you can go off and readily repeat and observe the tests, or use the tests as templates to alter however you like.

"At start of test" saves ready to run:

Grass surface

Rocky Red surfaxce

Cratered surface

The scenario file templates to edit:

Grass surface

Rocky Red surface

Cratered surface

[Georgie]

Excellent test Lt Bull. I hope that Battlefront will use your templates to run their own tests. This is already a remarkable game and if this,in my opinion,"flaw" can be corrected it will be, in my opinion, an even more remarkable game. I am looking forward to seeing the results of your upcoming lateral movement tests.

[dieseltaylor]

Thank you Lt Bull.

Just for fun I ran your cratered test without moving the Shermans so it was equal fire. The Shermans won slightly to my surprise 4 to 3 but only one test ...

The interesting point was at the end when a MkIV was ignoring to kill a bailed Sherman. After a couple of minutes I manually targeted the Shrman and in three consecutive shots at 1774 it hit the Sherman - but it used HE! Anway after five minutes the US crew were brave enough to go to the tank but were not able to mount it though I did find out it was immobilised. I therefore ordered the MkIV to fire again. This time it fire two of its 4 AP for penetrations and then switched to HE again.

Whilst I applaud saving the AP for other armour I would think HE unlikely to get it to blow up.

[Lt Bull]

Just for fun I ran your cratered test without moving the Shermans

Based on what have have learnt from the "moving over craters" firing test, I would expect that it just might even be possible to place (or HALT a moving tank) in a crater field on an otherwise "flat" tile (like ion my tests) in such a way that the orientation of the chassis actually PREVENTS the main gun from elevating/depressing far enough tor it to get a firing solution on the target. I might try this with the deeper/steeper craters.

[akd]

Seems this topic of tannk main gun accuracy has kind of been split between two recent threads. I have already added comments to the other thread (Tank Accuracy....) but now realise that my comments were probably better suited to this thread based on the thread title alone. For the sake of being concise, I will repeat my comments here then report on some findings of tests I have since carried out:

Now I have since carried out a few "tests" using the scenario editor (as you do) to determine if the TYPE OF SURFACE a tank is moving over affects it's ability to hit targets while on the move. As far as I am concerned, this factor alone in reality (as explained above) would be a MAJOR factor in determining how readily/accurately tank gunners could aim and hit targets while on the move.

The results so far are quite compelling. I intend to do more variant tests but there is enough here to discuss for the meantime.

First of all, l will discuss the "tests" I set up:

• I created a plain FLAT "firing range" approximately 1790m in length. I divided the firing range in to separate "firing lanes" by running a line of high hedgerows the length of the map. LOS is therefore just restricted to the confines of each firing lane. The map I created has 7 lanes, could add more later if needed.
  

• Next I placed a US tank (M4A3, all normal/regular crew stats) up one end of each of the firing lanes and a German tank (PzIVH) up the other (spaced ~1780m apart). I chose the Sherman tank as the "subject" and the PzIVH as the "target". To make the PzIVH "passive targets" I immobilized them, made their crew motivation "fanatical" (to minimise baailing out), faced them AWAY from the Shermans and gave them short covered arcs again in the opposite direction of the Shermans. (NOTE: Was happy for the sake of this test that at no time in any of my tests did any of the PzIVH crew break from their covered arc order, rotate their turret and engage the Shermans. In an actual game, such TacAI behaviour might be questionable.)
  

• I now assign all the Shermans short covered arcs and process a few turns until ALL the Shermans eventually spot the PziVH target at the end of their firing lane.
  

• I now delete the covered arc commands from the Shermans and give each Sherman a "Move" command directly towards the PzIVH target at the other end of the firing lane and observe what happens.
  

I have run this test a few times and observed how changing the map SURFACE over which the Shermans are moving on affects their ability to hit the PzIVH targets as they move towards them. I did not give the Shermans specific "Target" orders but let them engage at will.

TYPE OF SURFACE: Grass

All Shermans begin stationary about 1780m away from their target. The gunner in each tank seems to start aiming after about 8 seconds in to the turn, having travelled about 25m (range to target ~1755m). Approx 10 sec later they all start firing their first shots (range now ~1715m).

From this point onwards they fire off a volley once ~14-15 sec reducing their range to target by ~67m (travelling @ a constant 4.5m/sec). That's 4 rounds fired every 60sec turn, travelling a total of ~270m.

For the moment I will not discuss the details of these results, and just tell you what I conclude when I compare this test to other surfaces.

TYPE OF SURFACE: Rocky Red

The Sherman speed when given the Move order over this terrain is slightly slower than when on default grass. Realistically the rough surface it is supposed to represent could possibly make aiming at targets at range potentially impossible, at least HARDER than if travelling on grass. The texture even tries to give the impression that it is "rough terrain" by having sharp rocky projections coming from it. Is it really rough?

However, based on early observations, there is no OBVIOUS difference (not of the kind I would realistically expect) between the to hit accuracy while moving of the tanks moving over the GRASS and those moving over the ROCKY RED. So really the "rough" terrain this tile is meant to represent may as well just be considered "flat" for this discussion.

But there is ANOTHER test that paints a completely different (and as far as I am concerned) a much more realistic picture of how the surface being travelled on SHOULD affect the aim/to hit ability of a moving tank.

TYPE OF SURFACE: Grass + "15L" craters

This cratered terrain, (unlike other surface types like "Rocky Red") PHYSICALLY alters the surface over which the craters are placed. You can watch the tanks (and their barrels) undulate and roll etc as they move across this landscape. Understanding that CMx2 models every shot etc, I really thought it would be strange if this DIDN'T drastically affect things.

It was certainly reassuring then to find that the Shermans moving over this terrain, firing at the same rate as before, actually seem to have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of hitting the target downrange when moving. I have yet to detect even ONE hit! (I haven't tested closer than say 500m however).

This is the kind of DRASTIC (impossible chance) difference I expected to see in the "to hit" accuracy of tank firing while moving over rough terrain.

So I conclude this so far:

• There is nothing really "rough" about CMBN "rough" terrain tiles when it comes to affecting the firing platform mechanics of tanks moving across them. They may as well be moving along grass tiles. CMBN does not seem to "abstract" the effect of moving over "rough" terrain tiles when it comes to gun accuracy.
  

• Only the "physical" undulations you see on the map which in turn actually affect the the physical orientation of the tank as it moves across, and not any abstracted terrain surface type tile, affects the tanks ability to target while moving in the way you would expect it to in RL.
  

It would be interesting to see how CMBN played out IF the terrain tiles that imply they have a certain surface "texture"/"roughness" (like "rocky red', "rough", "cobblestones" etc) actually modified the terrain surface in the same way craters do, in turn affecting the motion of the vehicles moving over it and consequently the accuracy of firing while on the move, in the same drastic way moving over cratered terrain currently does. Would "firing while on the move" calcs be "automatically" accounted/look after themselves?

I got a bunch of other "firing while moving" tests I have i mind.

- same as above tests but driving down a constant incline

-firing while moving laterally (not directly at target).

-compare the gyro-stabliser equiped Sherman "fire while moving" results with those of German tanks.

Will let you know as I do them.

For what it's worth, I am making available to you the "scenario templates" and the "start of test" saved files of the tests I have done so you can go off and readily repeat and observe the tests, or use the tests as templates to alter however you like.

"At start of test" saves ready to run:

Grass surface

Rocky Red surfaxce

Cratered surface

The scenario file templates to edit:

Grass surface

Rocky Red surface

Cratered surface

Just a reminder that "grass" is not really a smooth surface in the game, like a soccer field or lawn. It is more like a country field with dips and ruts from drainage and other irregularities. The only truly "smooth" surfaces in the game are probably pavement and dirt lot.

[Lt Bull]

Just a reminder that "grass" is not really a smooth surface in the game, like a soccer field or lawn. It is more like a country field with dips and ruts from drainage and other irregularities. The only truly "smooth" surfaces in the game are probably pavement and dirt lot.

I would think that perhaps for LOS purposes and small arms direct fire purposes this statement is correct, but even then it must be abstracted as you physically cant see these ruts and irregularities.

But as far as affecting the "to hit" chances of tanks firing while moving over it, the mechanical effects of any of these "abstracted" dips/ruts/irregularities seem to be generically abstracted separately in the "to hit" calculation somehow. Further, I would go on to say that this "abstracted to hit while moving fudge factor" DOES NOT change based on what terrain title the tank is moving on, as my tests seem to indicate.

ie. any abstracted effects on targeting while moving over "grass" terrain (with it's abstracted dips and irregularities) seems identical (or not significantly differnt to) what it is for moving over what is meant to be "rough" terrain (that really would/should affect the "to hit" calculation more significantly).

Keep in mind that if CMBN actually DID take in to consideration the abstracted surface a tank is moving over while calculating it's probability to hit a target, then it would be one of the first games to my knowledge, PC or boardgame, (not even ASL considers the surface type a tank is moving on when determining its "to hit modifiers" for moving fire) that does so. I would consider the implementation of model such a feature in any game as just another small step towards a more realistic battlefield simulation (basically more goodness under the bonnet).

Basically ALL games seem to disregard the surface a vehicle is moving on when determining "to hit" penalty modifiers. All movement, across ANY abstracted terrain type, is just counted as "Moving fire" with possibly a generic modifier maybe simply related to "speed". Would factoring in the current terrain type be that difficult? I don't see a reason why it would be.