One of the engagement involve Malyutka and M1A1

[Tcao]

I just finished a PBEM game with byzantine1990, it’s a great game. I am reviewing the combat log to digest what I have learned from the game.
I am looking at one of the engagements and a question has been raised up. Is this a flank shot? lucky shot? Or the Pk possibility of causing fallout damage is way too high?

AT-3 engagement.jpg (825.74 KiB) Viewed 1498 times

At 2325 the NVA BMP-1 co was engaged by 2 M1A1 tank at 1200m , it retaliated with 2 AT-3 ATGM, claimed one M1A1 destroyed (likely a fallout). That seems to be too efficiency.

[Bil H]

The AT-3 has a max-effective range of 2500m, and it was firing at very close range to the M1s, so to cause damage to one tank and force it out of action? Yeah, I personally think that is a valid result regardless of the orientation of the target.

Bil

[Tcao]

well, 9m14m AT-4B MCLOS version has about 60% probability of hit.

even assume both hit that means 1 in 2 missiles either disable the gun or kill the mobility? If it is not a lucky shot , then I would say the armor units in FCSS seems to be very fragile.

[CapnDarwin]

Tcao, it is possibly the first engagement versus the tanks at the short range that a flank hit occurred that could have killed the M1. A frontal fallout is possible on the hull, but highly unlikely on the turret.

[Tcao]

Here is the M1A1 unit's log.

m1 diaries.jpg (208.83 KiB) Viewed 1335 times

I can double check the flank shot rule. But I don't think the BMP-1 Co fit into flank shot Suprise rule as the defender is aware of the attacker.

[CapnDarwin]

I still go with a fallout shot. We would need to see the subunit listing to see if it was a hard kill. Without seeing the log or a screenshot it still might be a flank shot at this short range.

[Tcao]

My gut feeling this is a fallout shot. The end game screen says all 4 M1A1 destroyed but that is because : "I have more remaining units compare to my opponent , so I control the battlefield and all my opponent fallout heavy equipment become destroyed"

[CapnDarwin]

You can verify if it is a kill or fallout in the Dashboard on the subunits tab for that unit.

[Tcao]

This?

m1 status.jpg (78.48 KiB) Viewed 1249 times

[CapnDarwin]

That result with all four dead seems odd. Do you have that game turn saved? I would like to run it in the game dev environment and see what is happening in this case.

[Tcao]

Hi
like I said, that is because of this:

123.jpg (161.52 KiB) Viewed 1225 times

This is a PBEM game

[CapnDarwin]

Thanks, I forgot about that. So more likely a fallout. I feel better about it. We need to improve the information in the diary entries so the level of loss is noted.

[IronMikeGolf]

Tcao,

As Capn Darwin said, we can't definitively answer engagement level questions absent a game save we can run in the dev environment. Additionally, we can invoke extra logging (which we don't do in commercial release it will fill your hard drive very quickly) and look at a lot of intermediate calcs.

Next best is to tell us which scenario you're talking about and the weather conditions at the time. Terrain and visibility matter.

My last point is 2 shots do make anywhere near an adequate statistical universe. One engagement of 2 missiles doesn't, just on that basis, raise my curiosity. Look at your logs. How many AT-3s were shot for how many M1A1 casualties? It doesn't really matter Fallen Out vs KIA in this case. The radio log doesn't make a differentiation nor should it.

The fact is 2 missiles and one casualty is inconclusive. If the Ph and Pk are > 0, then a casualty is possible. Show me hundreds of missiles and the resultant casualty count and I have something to work with. 2 missiles and one casualty? Not enough evidence to make me concerned, especially lacking environmental conditions.

[tylerasmith1995]

Thanks, I forgot about that. So more likely a fallout. I feel better about it. We need to improve the information in the diary entries so the level of loss is noted.

This would be a fantastic improvement, I really would like to be able to see level of loss in the diary.

[IronMikeGolf]

Thanks, I forgot about that. So more likely a fallout. I feel better about it. We need to improve the information in the diary entries so the level of loss is noted.

This would be a fantastic improvement, I really would like to be able to see level of loss in the diary.

I am going to push back. During the fight, what a commander wants to know is how many operational subunits there are. Categories of non-operational subunits are of concern after the battle. During the battle, the maintenance folks are concerned, but we don't model repair during a battle.

Looking to the OP, the question is about the conversion of Fallen Out to KIA due to a very lopsided victory that precludes a side recovering Fallen Out subunits. That is useful info for an AAR. I don't feel it is appropriate for the radio log (perfect info available immediately). The AAR data should reflect the state change of the casualty resulting from the overwhelming victory of one side.

[tylerasmith1995]

Thanks, I forgot about that. So more likely a fallout. I feel better about it. We need to improve the information in the diary entries so the level of loss is noted.

This would be a fantastic improvement, I really would like to be able to see level of loss in the diary.

I am going to push back. During the fight, what a commander wants to know is how many operational subunits there are. Categories of non-operational subunits are of concern after the battle. During the battle, the maintenance folks are concerned, but we don't model repair during a battle.

Looking to the OP, the question is about the conversion of Fallen Out to KIA due to a very lopsided victory that precludes a side recovering Fallen Out subunits. That is useful info for an AAR. I don't feel it is appropriate for the radio log (perfect info available immediately). The AAR data should reflect the state change of the casualty resulting from the overwhelming victory of one side.

Ah, you make a great point there and articulate it very well. I agree with you very much on the radio-log.

[Tcao]

Tcao,

As Capn Darwin said, we can't definitively answer engagement level questions absent a game save we can run in the dev environment. Additionally, we can invoke extra logging (which we don't do in commercial release it will fill your hard drive very quickly) and look at a lot of intermediate calcs.

Next best is to tell us which scenario you're talking about and the weather conditions at the time. Terrain and visibility matter.

My last point is 2 shots do make anywhere near an adequate statistical universe. One engagement of 2 missiles doesn't, just on that basis, raise my curiosity. Look at your logs. How many AT-3s were shot for how many M1A1 casualties? It doesn't really matter Fallen Out vs KIA in this case. The radio log doesn't make a differentiation nor should it.

The fact is 2 missiles and one casualty is inconclusive. If the Ph and Pk are > 0, then a casualty is possible. Show me hundreds of missiles and the resultant casualty count and I have something to work with. 2 missiles and one casualty? Not enough evidence to make me concerned, especially lacking environmental conditions.

Jeff
I am afraid no save file can be provided as this is a PBEM++ game (unless there is a way to generate a save file in PBEM++?).

The game record has disappear from my screen. My understanding is PBEM++ system will do a house cleaning every month. But I remember the log, After the two Saggers caused one M1A1 out of action, BMP-1 fired another two Saggers two min later, but without taking out the last surviving M1. So you have a record of 4 AT-3 taking out 1 M1. That is just one case and I understand It can be disregarded in statistics. However, if You piece together all the fragments, it creats a slightly worrying picture. (Please see the questions on long range engagement in Bil H's post) . it brought up questions : "Is direct fire too accurate?" or "Is heavy armor in FCSS too fragile ?"

I just update the game to 7120, I heard things changed a lot with the latest update, I will give this a look