Axis armor points in CMBB

[jtcm]

Is it the case that there is no "invulnerable defilade" in CMAK ? Or is it that in the tests, the tanks are defeating the ATG with area fire ??

[Joachim]

Originally Posted by JasonC

There is no possible accounting for tank losses on any side in WW II that has a deployed ATG accounting for even a single tank from the enemy side, as a weapon life average. This is true for the whole war, for whole theaters, and for individual campaigns or battles last a month to a week.

There were more ATGs than tanks. So the mean ATG never even faced a tank. It was destroyed by arty, inf or just left stranded. Average and means are pretty stupid when describing single incidents.

Even for campaigns the ATGs were usually deployed to cover a wider frontage than the frontage the tanks attacked. This is the doctrine of tank warfare. Mass them to outnumber the guns in a small area.

Lots of tank kills in CM weren't total write-offs in RL. So RL production numbers for tanks do not equal "killed" tanks in CM.

You can find cases in AARs in which a single ATG battery defeats a tank company with loss, but you will always, always find this is due to the tanks never locating the firing weapons at all.

Well.... I miss that stealth in CM. Tanks should not use tactics exploiting borg spotting vs ATGs. Which is impossible, as the TacAI does that and we can't influence the TacAI. So we all are cheaters. No, the game itself cheats!

[JasonC]

MM - pot, kettle.

I've posted on the ATG crest issue for years, and know every detail of its game implementation, including its history. You are the one pounding a straw man.

The difficulty of hitting a gun behind a crest was even more extreme in earlier versions and a patch deliberately added the tiny chance of a direct hit beside the gun, "through" the hill. But the chance is still vastly lower than anything realistic, and outgoing shells are not intercepted by the hill in the same manner.

If you replace the gun with a concrete bunker but move it to the top of the crestline, its survivability against a horde of shooters will decline. Is being behind a crest supposed to be superior protection to having only a 1 foot firing slit, and otherwise being encased in several feet of reinforced concrete?

Put one Sherman up against one PAK 40 and count the dead tanks before the 5th dead PAK (use 10 firing lanes per test to speed things, but each a one on one match up).

It's a bug, exploiting it is cheating, all there is to it.

As for historical losses and inferences from them, if an ATG could achieve the survivability shown in CMBB merely by being sited properly, ATG defenses in WW II would have stopped armor attacks cold, practically all the time.

As usual, gamey players want to feel like tactical geniuses accomplishing what their historical counterparts clearly could not, merely by stressing as hard as they possibly can, the few most broken points in the game system they are handed. As usual, it is crap.

And as usual, there is a simple solution that works with the game instead of deliberately against it, that does not blame the game for faults of the players, that does not ask for impossibilities from game designers or pretend that cheating is OK unless perfect realism mana rains from the sky. It is easy, voluntary, anyone can do it practically without effort and there is no reason whatever not to.

Just don't exploit the bug.

Just take Panzer III longs and Marders not 80mm front StuGs in 1942, and Panzer IV longs not Tiger Is endless in 1943, or KVs endlessly in 1941, or overmodeled Sturmoviks in every clear weather scenario big enough to afford them, etc etc.

It is all easy but it is all resisted by people uninterested in getting the historical most out of the game system, and instead only interested in winning this one fight by hook or by crook.

And it is easy to deal with that attitude, wherever you find it. Say "have a nice life" and move on...

[Tero]

By JasonC

But the chance is still vastly lower than anything realistic, and outgoing shells are not intercepted by the hill in the same manner.

How do you determine what is realistic ? What is the difference between hulldown tanks and ATG with their barrel and top of the shield just above the crest line ? Logically I would think compared to hulldown tanks "hulldown" ATG's would be exponentially harder to hit directly. Even a near miss would not be as dangerous as the hill crest would shield the gun from debris.

Is being behind a crest supposed to be superior protection to having only a 1 foot firing slit, and otherwise being encased in several feet of reinforced concrete?

Coming from you I find this statement incredible.

Riddle me this: if you are aiming at a bulls eye are you more likely score a hit if the bulls eye is just visible just above a crest or if it is in full view ?

It's a bug, exploiting it is cheating, all there is to it.

What is truly a bug is the cross section targeting calculation which disregards hull mounted guns when determining hull down position.

As for historical losses and inferences from them, if an ATG could achieve the survivability shown in CMBB merely by being sited properly, ATG defenses in WW II would have stopped armor attacks cold, practically all the time.

How many successful armour attacks without any infantry support do you know of ?

[Merkin Muffley]

JC: I am happy that you stick to your guns and post something useful like this most recent post, but as your post that I commented to made no mention of the kink issue I wondered whether your introduction of a very weak "realism" argument meant you had moved on.

The straw man?

There is no possible accounting for tank losses on any side in WW II that has a deployed ATG accounting for even a single tank from the enemy side, as a weapon life average

Well, honestly, it may appear profound, but its relevance to CM is nil. How many of those deployed ATG saw action? In CM it is highly likely that deployed ATG will be in combat. And what terminated the vast bulk of those real-life ATG? Tank guns? I doubt it.


I will trawl through your anti-tank gun crest kink posts in other threads. What is the issue is that here you are saying that shots either hit somewhat in front of the gun or fly beyond it. Does that mean invulnerable to direct fire? Well, it appears not from your most recent post, but you state that it is still less than is realistic. The posts here and my own quick experiments demonstrated that the guns were quite vulnerable. Manoeuvered guns had even less chance - they did well to get a shot off.

[jtcm]

I ran a test with CMBB. Dunno if parameters were well chosen, but here they are:

Small map with ridge. 2 German 37 mm in trenches, facing a plt of T-70s. Distance 400-500 m.

Gun 1 entrenched on reverse slope, non-kinky LOS to tank. It gets a shot off. The tank destroys the ATG with return of shot.

Gun 2 entrenched on reverse slope, kinky LOS to 5 tanks. It plinks away happily (and even takes out a T-70). Return of shot hits the "glacis" of the slope, or sails above. On turn 5, one of the T-70s (firing from a slight angle, but still kinkily) gets a direct hit, and suppresses the gun. Two more hits or shots landing in the trench from a T-70 straight ahead, at 440 m, with kinky LOS to the ATG in its trench: the gun is panicked, and then abandoned.

Some remarks

1. Incredibly fun to watch one's gun in "invulnerable defilade" and the shots falling short or sailing long-- one feels (even if JasonC is denouncing a bug and a cheat) very safe and smug and congratulates oneself on one's tactical eye for terrain.

2. But is it invulnerable defilade ? I suppose after about 15 shots from the tank plt, the ATG's run was up.

3. Had it been one on one, ATG against tank, and with a heavy hitting ATG, the ATG would have been at a great advantage from the "semi-invulnerable defilade" bug / feature

4. It's actually possible to get a non-kinky line from one's entrenched ATG, but a kinky line to another part of the map (as dieseltaylor observed, I think).

5. Is the correct tactic massed HE fire against ATGs ? Is that not well simulated in this case ?

That's all one had to say

[Tero]

By jtcm

5. Is the correct tactic massed HE fire against ATGs ? Is that not well simulated in this case ?

What is not true-to-life in the game is the targeting accuracy bonus platoons get over individual vehicles for aiming/shooting at the same target.

[Merkin Muffley]

Nice points

4. It's actually possible to get a non-kinky line from one's entrenched ATG, but a kinky line to another part of the map (as dieseltaylor observed, I think).

Yes! Exploring this further, I just had a Soviet Churchill start firing on a 37mm that had its armour arc set much nearer. I had set this up with gentle crest usage at about 170 metres, but the Churchill started firing at about 225m. I didn't even realise there was an alternate keyhole as it looked to be obstructed by trees. Because JC has painted himself into a moralistic corner, he can't entertain any exceptions to his rules. Because the gun is gaining (in this case) major crest benefit it is necessarily my fault. Yet if all had gone to plan I would have explored the impact of minimal HE fire directed immediately in front of the gun's location. I deliberately chose the 37mm* as it wouldn't have an earthly of killing the Churchill, and the Churchill because its HE is pretty pathetic.

* Don't forget to strip off its hollow charge though.

5. Is the correct tactic massed HE fire against ATGs ? Is that not well simulated in this case ?

Yes - and have mortars. Again, the Stalinist line seems to be that you must rule out anything that might help.

I am quite happy for JC to have his library of restrictions that he uses. Some seem quite sensible - unit selection, for example. Guns in trenches behind crests would appear to be quite controllable - as in don't do it. But mobile guns. Really? Is it credible that I can and should check every possible crest implication?

I am certain that JC micro-manages his units. How long does he take ordering in a 1500 point game? I have no idea. But I guess he takes longer than those who don't micro-manage their units. Typically I take a minute, or a maximum of 2. I don't do this through laziness or for semi-instant gratification, but because I think that the compromises forced on non-micro-managing actually make for greater playability and (sometimes) possibly even realism. Once a fire-fight starts there isn't the time to finesse all the tips and tricks that JC, amongst many others, has documented as maximizing your units' impact.

[jtcm]

Well, I still think there's something dodgy about using the trench+crest defilade as startup position for ATGs-- but the problem is that it is a natural spot to put a gun.

[Merkin Muffley]

I've edited mine now to show that when I said guns in trenches could be "controllable" I meant easy to identify on setup and therefore don't do it rather than anything else.

I can't find the reference to hand, but the trench increases protection doesn't it? Definitely having your cake and eating it if used behind a crest.