Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

Weapon tests for Combat Mission

Kraut said:
First tank duel test
CMFI v.2.10
at 500m and 1500m, 5 sets are 10x 1 versus 1 tank duels - each tank can due to terrain obstacles only shot the one opposing tank, tanks opened upped, hotseat modus to avoid any possible singleplayers penalties (skill level) and to open all tanks up, frontal side versus frontal side.

View attachment 18664
Note: the only draw has occurred as both tank destroyed each other at the same moment.
In total it have been 100 duels PanzerIVH early versus M4A1 Sherman early and 100 duels Panzer VA Panther early versus M4A1 Sherman early.
Click to expand...

I think its important to bear in mind how limited this kind of testing is.

For example, the Panther vs Sherman test only tells us that a Panther will beat a Sherman in 1vs1 head-on duel, which isn't a very common tactical situation (precisely because the Sherman will lose almost every time). It would perhaps be more useful to know averages for spotting and aiming times, the number of shots it takes to get on target, the number of hits and the number of penetrating hits. A situation where the Panther sees first, shoots first and kills first without the Sherman ever noticing it is very, very different from a situation where the Sherman spots first and has enough time to pop smoke and escape before the Panther spots it in return.

Something else to bear in mind is that slight changes to the test can produce wildly different results. Turning the Panther 90 degrees to one side, for example, would probably see the Sherman win most of the time. Buttoning the vehicles up and having them not directly looking at each other might see the Sherman get the first shot off more often because it has wider-angle optics for the gunner.

I'm not saying these kinds of tests aren't useful- they are- just that in my experience the tactical situation tends to either override or sidestep them.
 
Hapless said:
I think its important to bear in mind how limited this kind of testing is.

For example, the Panther vs Sherman test only tells us that a Panther will beat a Sherman in 1vs1 head-on duel, which isn't a very common tactical situation (precisely because the Sherman will lose almost every time). It would perhaps be more useful to know averages for spotting and aiming times, the number of shots it takes to get on target, the number of hits and the number of penetrating hits. A situation where the Panther sees first, shoots first and kills first without the Sherman ever noticing it is very, very different from a situation where the Sherman spots first and has enough time to pop smoke and escape before the Panther spots it in return.

Something else to bear in mind is that slight changes to the test can produce wildly different results. Turning the Panther 90 degrees to one side, for example, would probably see the Sherman win most of the time. Buttoning the vehicles up and having them not directly looking at each other might see the Sherman get the first shot off more often because it has wider-angle optics for the gunner.

I'm not saying these kinds of tests aren't useful- they are- just that in my experience the tactical situation tends to either override or sidestep them.
Click to expand...
That is totally correct also in my opinion and I am bear in mind that my tanks duel test are limited. The reason for that is that Combat Mission is thankfully a way more complex simulation than: Panther vs Sherman M4A1 = 100% win in all cases for the Panther and the Sherman is destroyed (Sherman can disengage, smoke, trying to flank, et cetera) This is one of the reasons I am such fascinated and allured to play Combat Mission. The test result are only showing that under the described specific test setting it produced this result. My main goal for the test has been to try to get information about how the fighting distance would influence the result of a specific tank duel (a question from my Tunisia DAR) and therefore I compared long distance to medium distance.
I have also already tested Marder IIIM versus Sherman M4A1 over long and medium distance and the results shows that there is a significant difference between medium and long range winning chance in this case.

As you wrote the averages for spotting time, aiming time, hit versus miss ratio, et cetera would be very useful to know and I would be interested to gain information about this.

Sir, am I am right that this is your YouTube channel:
www.youtube.com

Usually Hapless

www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
It is one of my most loved Combat Mission channels! Thank you very much for your fantastic work!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My last test to publish:
CMFI v.2.10
at 500m and 1500m, 5 sets are 10x 1 versus 1 - each tank can due to terrain obstacles only shot the one opposing tank, tanks opened upped, hotseat modus to avoid any possible singleplayers penalties (skill level) and to open all tanks up, frontal side versus frontal side.
l.png
Note: the draws have occurred as both tanks destroyed each other at the same moment.
In total it have been 100 duels Marder IIIM early versus M4A1 Sherman (50 duels at each distance). A more bigger sample size would reduce variance further.
 
It no doubt would be a huge job to track but data I’d like to see is in all these engagements what are the proportions of who fired first, who hit first, and what are the one-shot kill ratios.

i realize this would be a lot more work, I’m not asking you to do it, rather saying that some of that information would be helping make the picture clearer.
 
It is always a good idea to understand the advantages and disadvantages of your equipment versus your opponent's. So I applaud the tests... but they are mainly weapon effectiveness tests, not really a test of the entire weapon system itself.

For example the STuG versus Sherman test looks good for the STuG, but if you factor in the lack of a turret and the slow hull reorientation versus the very fast Sherman turret rotation speed the advantage swings back to the Sherman in a real tactical situation. It still comes down to tactics and the man making the decisions... though occasionally some weapon systems are simply too much for another one on one (i.e. Tiger I v Stuart/M4A1, etc.), but there are tactical remedies for that (i.e. "Run away", engage with other weapon systems (ATG or Bazooka team, etc.)).

Still, keep going, but I would recommend testing the entire weapon system... for example, what would be the results if the Shermans and STuGs were slowly advancing on each other in a zig-zag pattern of movement?
 
Drifter Man said:
Related to the initial posts about rate of fire, I've done a fair bit of testing of small arms vs. infantry (link to Battlefront forums).
I'm now working on it again to update and expand. May take a while. Just letting you know so that we don't duplicate efforts. I'm not doing tanks at the moment :)
Click to expand...

I'm happy to hear you continue testing this. Your first test was very interesting. I wish they would take on board some of your conclusions - such as the SMGs being too effective out at their max range.
 
Kraut said:
My last test to publish:
CMFI v.2.10
at 500m and 1500m, 5 sets are 10x 1 versus 1 - each tank can due to terrain obstacles only shot the one opposing tank, tanks opened upped, hotseat modus to avoid any possible singleplayers penalties (skill level) and to open all tanks up, frontal side versus frontal side.
View attachment 18674
Note: the draws have occurred as both tanks destroyed each other at the same moment.
In total it have been 100 duels Marder IIIM early versus M4A1 Sherman (50 duels at each distance). A more bigger sample size would reduce variance further.
Click to expand...

I assume the Marder gets the upper hand because it is open topped and therefore spots better? As compared to the PanzerIV. I think the gun is the same.
 
Bulletpoint said:
I assume the Marder gets the upper hand because it is open topped and therefore spots better? As compared to the PanzerIV. I think the gun is the same.
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference: The Panzer IVH has KwK 40 maingun and the Marder IIIM has the PaK 40 maingun. They are very similar, but not the same, as far as I know.
KwK 40 shoots 75×495mm and the PaK 40 75x714mm shells, which gives higher velocity, penetration power and a more flat trajectory. But I am no expert, maybe I am wrong about this.
 
Good effort on the work.

There is a clear improvement in fire rate for infantry weapons based on experience. Is there any increase in accuracy?

cheers.
 
Hapless said:
Yep, that's me. Thanks for watching man!
Click to expand...

Yep they are a quality watch. I have exhausted all the WW2 ones and not that keen on modern combat though I have watched a few of your battles.

So long middle and short - can we have some please
 
@WinOrLose Should get my first CMFI PBEM up halfway through the current CMSF series as a bone for the WW2 crowd. After that it's back to Road to Montebourg, then some more modern and then some WW2 I don't think anyone has ever done before (definitely not on Youtube anyway).

And to tie it in to weapons testing, the CMFI game involves a very cheeky way of using a certain British vehicle for unexpected indirect fire. It's not waay out of the box, but it's interesting.
 
WinOrLose said:
There is a clear improvement in fire rate for infantry weapons based on experience. Is there any increase in accuracy?
Click to expand...

So far I can tell that SMG power has been reduced since 4.0 - not drastically, but significantly - and that Bren and B.A.R., which used to fire in semi-auto mode above 150 m now fire full auto at all ranges. I haven't done a full comparison across the board yet - still collecting data and this will continue for weeks.
 
Drifter Man said:
So far I can tell that SMG power has been reduced since 4.0 - not drastically, but significantly - and that Bren and B.A.R., which used to fire in semi-auto mode above 150 m now fire full auto at all ranges. I haven't done a full comparison across the board yet - still collecting data and this will continue for weeks.
Click to expand...

I'm particularly interested in the StG44 and how it compares to SMGs and the rifles. I have the impression it's currently quite undermodelled.

Typical example I saw in a game recently: one US soldier with Garand trading shots with one German with StG44. Short range. The German fires three bursts that miss, then having to reload. The American fires six shots and hits with the sixth. The problem is that even though the StG44 outputs lots more bullets, they only hit a total of three locations. So in essence, the StG44 only has three attempts at hitting the target. While the Garand adjusts its aim for each shot, hitting a total of six locations.
 
Another thing I'd like to know is if the StG44 gets any advantage when firing at targets in cover, compared to the SMGs. It ought to have more penetration power, though less than a full rifle.
 
If the tests taught me one thing, there is a huge variation of results from one run to another. A soldier can hit all targets in 20 seconds, next time he can't hit a thing for minutes under the same conditions.

I'll compile the results I have so far, which includes major rifles and SMG's. I don't plan to investigate the effect of cover until I have all weapons tested against the standard target (4-man ammo bearer team in foxholes). I don't think the game considers penetration of cover (except for bunkers), I believe it only adds an "exposure" parameter that reduces the chance of the incoming fire to hit or cause damage. But that's just my speculation based on CMx1.
 
Here we go... with B.A.R. added as bonus, the only MG I've been able to test so far. The charts are busy, but after a while you should get oriented. I will need to work on processing and visualising the data because it gets messy with many weapons in the chart. The system is simple though - blue for US, green for British, dark grey for German, marker shape indicates type of the weapon.
Each data point is made up from 500+ tests... but at long distances it still seems not to be enough.

First plot - "kills per minute" - how many kills a single weapon scores per unit time against the standard target.
Second plot - "rounds per minute" - rate of fire (averaged over time, includes reloading, acquiring target, aiming etc.)
Third plot - "rounds per kill" - the ratio of the two plots above. Obviously, less is better. A proxy to weapon accuracy.

The MP44 should on average score 2-2.5 times more than the M1 Garand at close distances. At longer distances (>150m) it becomes similar to semi-auto rifles, just with higher rate of fire and less accurate.
Notice the anomaly of the SMG's - all become more accurate at 200 m than at 160 m - and by how much the Thompson stands above others at 160m. I plan to do another test of the Thompson to confirm. On the other hand, scoring a kill against an entrenched target before ammo runs out is unlikely with an SMG at these distances.


PUsdnCj.png

DSVEGdh.png

3YLv5sJ.png
 
I'm thinking the SMG inaccuracy starts to work to its advantage at long range because larger spread gives more impact points. At close range, a missed burst just sends all the bullets into the same hole in the ground.

Also, should the MP40 really be that much better than the StG44 at close range?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top