What is needed for better immersion

[ickylevel]

Actually if we had a single man infantry squad (AI) or a small group with a mg or anything capable at shooting at a tank (especially the commander), that would make the game a lot more interesting. We experimented with static mgs on the AAS server and it forces players a little bit more to use the actual equipment of the tank. It's just that the static mgs at the moment are really bad at targeting and often target objects that are far away rather than tanks nearby. We need a dedicated anti tank light infantry team. That would add a lot to the impression of being in an actual battle, rather than in a world of tank game. The aim is to force people to use the sights inside the tank, but also the mgs of the tanks.

The current US and british infantry doesn't target from far enough , and they target the tank in the center, so they don't make any damage to an unbutonned commander.

 

So what we need in terms of what is already in the game:

Something mobile (infantry on foot).

Something that fires from far enough (500m).

Something that is imprecise enough so it accidentally can hit the commander while aiming for the center of the tank (an mg).

Something that targets tanks in priority. Actually ideally it would only target tanks. They wouldn't fire at each other, which would cancel their presence (this is what is happenning at the moment with static mgs).

Edited December 19, 2022 by ickylevel

[Frinik22]

For better immersion I always recommend using a submarine.... Tanks don't dive deep enough.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Frinik22

[Bonnot]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:53 AM, ickylevel said:

We need a dedicated anti tank light infantry team. That would add a lot to the impression of being in an actual battle

 

That looks interesting and I agree....may I suggest you report to the thread TC2 etc... where the question is also disputed ?

 

 

[Wardog5711]

The desire to have a foot mobile/infantry based AT team that engages a tank at 500M is something that might occur today, but not really possible in WWII.

That would generally be a 37-57MM anti-tank guns role. 
 

Anyhow, looking at some of the man-portable AT weapons of the day:

The various Panzerfausts models had a max range between 30-150M

Panzerschreck: 150M

US M1/M1A1 bazooka: Max 370M, max effective 140M

Late war M9 bazooka: Max 400, max effective 110M

Piat: Max range 320M, max effective 105M

 

No infantryman in their right mind would open fire on armor at 500M with small arms or an emplaced MG unless they have a death wish or are acting as a distraction/bait for the dedicated tank killer team. An HE round would be headed their way shortly after they opened fire.

But I do agree that some type of close/mid range infantry threat would be a nice addition. But then we would need dismounted infantry support with the armor to deal with the AT teams. 

 

 

 

[ickylevel]

It was an official tactic to use mgs against tanks...

The problem at the moment is that an unbuttoned commander takes no risk on the battlefield. Optics are not needed.

I'm not talking about dedicated AT teams, but something to simulate the fact that bullets fly around during a battle and you have to stay inside your tank.

Edited December 20, 2022 by ickylevel

[Wardog5711]

 

I can definitely see an MG or even sporadic rifle fire being effective in a lightly wooded or urban area to keep a crew buttoned up.

The beaten zone for a tripod mounted  M1919 browning at 500 yards is 150 Yd long by 1 YD wide, so laying hate on the tank at that range is no big thing. But it would be no more than noise against the hull unless you got that lucky shot on the commander you are wanting to model. ?

Not sure what the MG34 or DT would be, but I'm assuming it would be similar.

A few year back I watched some video's of Marine tanks scratching each others backs with MG's to clean off Japanese infantry trying to plant charges on hatches etc.

Other than some chipped paint and shredded stowage, not much happened to the tank. The ranges were probably 100M or so. 

 

Anyhow... I'll add this to the list of potential adds if TC moves forward.

 

 

 

[[SN]_Reaper_]

6 минут назад, Wardog5711 сказал:

A few year back I watched some video's of Marine tanks scratching each others backs with MG's to clean off Japanese infantry trying to plant charges on hatches etc.

Other than some chipped paint and shredded stowage, not much happened to the tank. The ranges were probably 100M or so. 

Yesterday on the AAS server there were many complaints from blue team players about the killing of tank crewmembers when the hatches were closed.

From machine gun fire.

Edited December 20, 2022 by [SN]_Reaper_

[Wardog5711]

What vehicles?  And was it the coax or AA guns on the enemy tank or a fixed AA gun?

For the StuG, we got this back in response to some testing complaints.

Stug III crew can be wounded and killed by MG fire through open visors, there is 10 mm armor equivalent, so MG fire can get through at close distances.

 

 

[[SN]_Reaper_]

4 минуты назад, Wardog5711 сказал:

What vehicles?  And was it the coax or AA guns on the enemy tank or a fixed AA gun?

I can't say definitively, since I played for the red team and didn't keep a record. But the Reds had a lot of stationary DShK machine guns.

[[SN]_Reaper_]

19.12.2022 в 11:53, ickylevel сказал:

The aim is to force people to use the sights inside the tank, but also the mgs of the tanks.

To get players to use optics, there's only one thing you have to do. Block the zoom for crew members who are outside the tank.

Now we are dealing with cyborgs, not humans. Up to 1000 meters you can do just fine without optical instruments.

 

@Wardog5711 you can find out about this possibility? Or is it a global parameter and changing it in one part will affect (break) the whole review system

Edited December 20, 2022 by [SN]_Reaper_

[moustache]

10 minutes ago, [SN]_Reaper_ said:

Yesterday on the AAS server there were many complaints from blue team players about the killing of tank crewmembers when the hatches were closed.

From machine gun fire.

 

it's a bug that actually reappeared... or never disappeared...

 

 

15 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

What vehicles? 

For the StuG, we got this back in response to some testing complaints.

Stug III crew can be wounded and killed by MG fire through open visors, there is 10 mm armor equivalent, so MG fire can get through at close distances.

 

 

even with the visor closed, we take damage... and even the members who are not behind a visor...

on the German side, the stug, the Pz IV and the Pz III are concerned, at least... not tested the others, to do with the beta testers...

[Lofte]

2 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

Anyhow, looking at some of the man-portable AT weapons of the day:

The various Panzerfausts models had a max range between 30-150M

Panzerschreck: 150M

US M1/M1A1 bazooka: Max 370M, max effective 140M

Late war M9 bazooka: Max 400, max effective 110M

Piat: Max range 320M, max effective 105M

Don't forget AT-rifles. At 500 m penetration ability for PTRD/PTRS (Dragunov's or Simonov's AT-rifle) was somewhat 20 mm.

Enough to penetrate Sd.Kfz.251 or Sd.Kfz.234/2 "Puma" or tear apart tank's tracks..

 

[Wardog5711]

Yeah, that's gonna hurt if if the visors are up. A .51 to the face sucks.?

I've fired M2 Brownings at 500+ M against range targets that cut right through older APC's, trucks etc. but did nothing against tank armor.

However, that was not against direct vision ports.

It's tough to effectively model everything correctly in a game but a DShK should not be penetrating the front armor on the tanks. 

[352ndOscar]

[quote] @Wardog5711I've fired M2 Brownings at 500+ M against range targets that cut right through older APC's, trucks etc. but did nothing against tank armor.[/quote]

 

 

I wish you’d pass along your experience with the M2 to the guys doing the DM for the USA aircraft.  I’ve been trying to tell them for years.  4-8 of them will rip up even a train locomotive, much less an aluminum airplane.

[Wardog5711]

.50 APIT was stupid fun against old aluminum hulled LTVP's and water trailers. 

I would expect it to be dirty against trains unless it was one of those up armored things. 

[ickylevel]

MG penetrating tanks could be a result of bad server performance....

[Bonnot]

29 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

However, that was not against direct vision ports.

It's tough to effectively model everything correctly in a game but a DShK should not be penetrating the front armor on the tanks. 

 

In a computer program, what % of a hit through a slit (or in a visor)  will you give to an infantryman shooting  a small arm, when himself under fire ?

[Wardog5711]

 

Quote

In a computer program, what % of a hit through a slit (or in a visor)  will you give to an infantryman shooting  a small arm, when himself under fire ?

 

I'm not a game programmer, but real world I would say zero.  That would be the classic 'golden BB".

That loops back to my point of having been trained NOT to engage tanks with my personal or vehicle weapon. ?

However, no tank I've been around in the last 40 years had direct vision ports so it wasn't even a consideration.

 

 

[Bonnot]

1 minute ago, Wardog5711 said:

However, no tank I've been around in the last 40 years had direct vision ports so it wasn't even a consideration.

 

 

That sounds wisdom : don't attract attention of something who can crush you at once.

That appears clearly in Instructions Manuals of WWII era and the postwar "decolonisation" small wars training ....

[moustache]

28 minutes ago, ickylevel said:

MG penetrating tanks could be a result of bad server performance....

it's as much in multi as in solo... it's not your server's fault (by the way, very fun, despite this bug, all these rifle/mg shots around the tank...)

[super-truite]

From what I read, in defensive position like trenches, it was recommended to shoot with at least machine guns (other guns I do not know). The goal is to limit the visibility (forcing to close the hatches, breaking periscopes or visors) of the tanks and allow your tanks or guns to have an advantage. I read about this type of doctrine for the germans and russians I think. There was AT rifles as well, that were used on the russian side up to the end  of the war

[Wardog5711]

No doubt, when it is all you have, it's what you have to use. 

The Soviet AT rifles helped drive the addition of the Shurzen, so they were very effective early on.  

Firing from a concealed position at a vision block with one could possibly work assuming that no defensive fire is headed your way.

But just looking at the whining going on about pilots now being killed by death ray like hits to the cockpit. I can only imagine the outcry if AI controlled AT rifle gunners start one-shotting all the tank commanders and drivers.?

 

 

[Bonnot]

Maybe giving a "Chance factor"  equal to the Rifleman or LMG firing at a diving Stuka.......It as a chance to hit something , but what ???

 

[super-truite]

The skill parameter in the mission  editor could be used to tune the precision factor, aiming speed etc.
This way the precision could be fine tuned by the mission creator

[MajorMagee]

Now I'm having flash-backs about popping up out of a foxhole, after it was run over by a tank, to fire a puny little LAW at its massive back-side as they drove away.

 

[Wardog5711]

Anti-tank training. Camp Pendleton 1990.

Our training satchels had a small charge in them to make a nice bang, but not much else. The engine hatches would flap up and down.

Using old M48's. (no engine) 

1) Pretend tank is moving and hide in a ditch. Check

2) Jump out, then run up behind it and throw the satchel charge onto the rear deck. Check

3) Attempt to return to your ditch and take cover. Say what?

When a fellow Marine asked about what happens if the tank has a buddy, the answer was don't ask stupid questions. ?

All that was missing was big shoes and red noses.