Nice to see that there are actual differences in performance within game, as in the real world, and they're not all different 'coverings' of the same tank 'model'.
The question is whether these differences make any practical difference in game. I was actually surprised by the lack of impact movement on slopes had- that would be something to take into account when planning.
Also important to note that torque/acceleration and braking distance is also modeled in game - the Soviet T-72 and T-90 will accelerate slightly faster in reverse than contemporary tanks (since their transmission delivers more torque) and the T-72B3 (in my own, very unscientific testing) has worse brakes than the T-90A, since the T-72B3 will consistently end up stopping later than the T-90 (presumably due to worse brakes). Also important to note is that crew training is very important in determining maneuverability, especially on older vehicles (likely those without regenerative steering) - I've had times in CMCW where my (often low-experience) Soviet tank crews will oversteer in front of the enemy, exposing the sides of their vehicles.
Very cool test. Being a Sherman fanatic I'd be very interested to see what the difference is between the VVSS Shermans with 19" tracks and the HVSS Shermans with 23" tracks.
Vehicles can bog in craters (no matter how small) - I once had an embarrassing moment when my Challenger 2 bogged on a concrete road in a tiny crater from a Syrian 82mm mortar in direct view of an AT-14 team
This is some hardcore grognard shiz, but I love it! We might all already have some fairly accurate general knowledge of how vehicles will perform baked into our brains simply from using them so many times already, but seeing data like this can definitely help us. Now I just need to work on my skills with properly applying this knowledge and not overlooking situations where I could put it to use. I'm a work in progress 😁
Oh my, this is so much information to take in with all these numbers. Thank you for testing out all these scenerios that a vehicle might be put into! Also perfect thumbnail :Chefkiss:
Interesting. I'll add to this from an obstacle test I did many years ago with WW2 vehicles. The test was going through fences, short walls, and hedges. The conclusions were avoid anything wheeled going through these. If I recall correctly halftracks and the like were immobilized after about 3 passes over these obstacles regardless of speed. The main focus though I wanted to find out was - Does speed going through these effect degradation? The conclusion was Yes. For the 1st pass speed did not seem to matter much in going from GREEN to LIGHT GREEN status with tracked vehicles almost always losing one point. For all passes after the 1st speed mattered in how fast degradation happened. The faster the speed the more likely damage will occur. Vehicles that were given SLOW when going though after the 1st point of degradation fared much better than vehicles given faster move orders. Going faster almost always deducted a point of degradation so most vehicles would be in RED status immobilized with in 4 - 6 passes. Vehicles going SLOW doubled the success rate. I'm pretty sure it took about 12 passes going SLOW to get to RED immobilized. Bottom line - Go SLOW when going through obstacles to minimize track damage which makes logical sense.
@@usuallyhapless9481 It's been some years since doing that test so I may not be remembering the number of passes exact to get to immobilized, but the conclusions of avoiding going through obstacles/vineyards/hedges with wheeled vehicles since they degrade or immobilize easy, and using SLOW speed when going through to minimize damage I'm certain of from the test. Also logically, going through bunch of wood fences isn't going to cause as much damage as a bunch of hedges or walls.
Cool test, never did think about that myself. Usually look at how a tank fits into the faction's equipment line up rather than the tank alone. I suppose in the big picture fitting your tank into a doctrine is more important than having a really good tank that doesn't fit into your doctrine? On a tangent, any chance we could get a video on the Eryx in CMSF2? Haven't found any video guides talking about it.
That might be worth looking into- the tricky part is getting flavour objects exactly where you want them and making sure they don't influence the pathfinding
It might be. I did try a stabilisation test, engaging targets to the flank while moving, but I was thinking more about how much stabilisation influenced accuracy than engagement time.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Also important to note is that the capabilities of different fire-control systems are modeled in combat mission: obviously the effects of infrared imagers are modelled, but different FCS types also affect engagement speed on moving targets/while moving. (this is according to the CM:Pro modding manual, that I have "acquired")
Nice to see that there are actual differences in performance within game, as in the real world, and they're not all different 'coverings' of the same tank 'model'.
I agree, but it's kind of sad that it doesn't seem to make any difference in terms of speed whether a tank is climbing a slope or not.
The question is whether these differences make any practical difference in game.
I was actually surprised by the lack of impact movement on slopes had- that would be something to take into account when planning.
Combat mission: Aberdeen proving grounds.
Yep. There's probably even some abandoned tanks out there, hidden behind bushes quietly rusting away in the digital rain.
This is one of the best thumbnails I've ever seen
Also important to note that torque/acceleration and braking distance is also modeled in game - the Soviet T-72 and T-90 will accelerate slightly faster in reverse than contemporary tanks (since their transmission delivers more torque) and the T-72B3 (in my own, very unscientific testing) has worse brakes than the T-90A, since the T-72B3 will consistently end up stopping later than the T-90 (presumably due to worse brakes).
Also important to note is that crew training is very important in determining maneuverability, especially on older vehicles (likely those without regenerative steering) - I've had times in CMCW where my (often low-experience) Soviet tank crews will oversteer in front of the enemy, exposing the sides of their vehicles.
Reverse speed is not modelled correctly I think? Seems like T72/90 are reversing much faster in game than the miserable 4kmh in real life.
Very cool test. Being a Sherman fanatic I'd be very interested to see what the difference is between the VVSS Shermans with 19" tracks and the HVSS Shermans with 23" tracks.
It's about 4 inches, pal. Glad to be of service.
That would be interesting. Especially on the bogging test.
I bogged (then immobilized) a Panzer IVH on a dirt road in very dry conditions once. Not sure what happened but there we were.
Vehicles can bog in craters (no matter how small) - I once had an embarrassing moment when my Challenger 2 bogged on a concrete road in a tiny crater from a Syrian 82mm mortar in direct view of an AT-14 team
It's entirely possible to bog on nothing at all. I imagine the tracks just fall off or something.
This is some hardcore grognard shiz, but I love it! We might all already have some fairly accurate general knowledge of how vehicles will perform baked into our brains simply from using them so many times already, but seeing data like this can definitely help us. Now I just need to work on my skills with properly applying this knowledge and not overlooking situations where I could put it to use.
I'm a work in progress 😁
... I'm suddenly very concerned that I don't find it very hardcore grognard at all! I may have already slipped into the abyss...
Oh my, this is so much information to take in with all these numbers. Thank you for testing out all these scenerios that a vehicle might be put into!
Also perfect thumbnail :Chefkiss:
A real shame that the T-80U isn't present in CMBS, but at least the T-80B is in CMCW
All your videos are great! But I got to say, this is one of my favourite ideas for one.
Thanks very much man!
Nice work, Hap ! Helping the CM community a lot !
Interesting. I'll add to this from an obstacle test I did many years ago with WW2 vehicles. The test was going through fences, short walls, and hedges. The conclusions were avoid anything wheeled going through these. If I recall correctly halftracks and the like were immobilized after about 3 passes over these obstacles regardless of speed. The main focus though I wanted to find out was - Does speed going through these effect degradation? The conclusion was Yes.
For the 1st pass speed did not seem to matter much in going from GREEN to LIGHT GREEN status with tracked vehicles almost always losing one point. For all passes after the 1st speed mattered in how fast degradation happened. The faster the speed the more likely damage will occur. Vehicles that were given SLOW when going though after the 1st point of degradation fared much better than vehicles given faster move orders. Going faster almost always deducted a point of degradation so most vehicles would be in RED status immobilized with in 4 - 6 passes. Vehicles going SLOW doubled the success rate. I'm pretty sure it took about 12 passes going SLOW to get to RED immobilized. Bottom line - Go SLOW when going through obstacles to minimize track damage which makes logical sense.
Now that's a useful test!
@@usuallyhapless9481 It's been some years since doing that test so I may not be remembering the number of passes exact to get to immobilized, but the conclusions of avoiding going through obstacles/vineyards/hedges with wheeled vehicles since they degrade or immobilize easy, and using SLOW speed when going through to minimize damage I'm certain of from the test. Also logically, going through bunch of wood fences isn't going to cause as much damage as a bunch of hedges or walls.
And please use the top gear Intro music when you make videos of your test 😅.
Btw cool map, this was a really good idea.
Great stuff!
M18 Hellcat. Got a feeling that would break the trend a bit given speed and mass.
It definitely goes in a different direction to the usual fare.
Cool test, never did think about that myself. Usually look at how a tank fits into the faction's equipment line up rather than the tank alone. I suppose in the big picture fitting your tank into a doctrine is more important than having a really good tank that doesn't fit into your doctrine?
On a tangent, any chance we could get a video on the Eryx in CMSF2? Haven't found any video guides talking about it.
The Eryx is the Canadian ATGM, right? I'm not sure there's that much to say. Not as good as Javelin, better than Carl Gustaf...
@@usuallyhapless9481 Eryx, IIRC, is SACLOS-guided, so pretty much a smaller, shoulder-fired TOW (basically an AT-13 without the tripod mount)
gooooooood
How many tanks did you use for the bogging test? I would use 10 tanks and repeat the test 10 times to get some sort of "accurate" percentage.
100 tests would obviously be better, but it would also take a lot more time and effort to get a number that is about the same level of usefulness.
Why not add waypoint marks (or tiny objects) for extra accuracy?
That might be worth looking into- the tricky part is getting flavour objects exactly where you want them and making sure they don't influence the pathfinding
Iirc, flavor objects are unaffected by vehicles and infantry and fire. They're for visual interest only. @@usuallyhapless9481
Is it worth testing the fire control system with targets to the flank of the slope test? e.g. stab v non stab engagement times.
It might be. I did try a stabilisation test, engaging targets to the flank while moving, but I was thinking more about how much stabilisation influenced accuracy than engagement time.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Also important to note is that the capabilities of different fire-control systems are modeled in combat mission: obviously the effects of infrared imagers are modelled, but different FCS types also affect engagement speed on moving targets/while moving.
(this is according to the CM:Pro modding manual, that I have "acquired")
🪖