Reverse movement command needed; German armor sections?

[Yoozername]

What I am saying is that it can certainly occur that a vehicle could move forward, fire a round or two, and START to move backwards within 40 seconds.  It does not need to complete the reverse portion of its reverse during thoise 40 seconds.

I am also saying this is a drill or tactic.  Not a morale driven event.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
What I am saying is that it can certainly occur that a vehicle could move forward, fire a round or two, and START to maove backwards within 40 seconds.  It does not need to complete the reverse portion of its reverse during thoise 40 seconds.
I am also saying this is a drill or tactic.  Not a morale driven event.

Certainly. But let's call the point at the end of the second shot the end of the first phase. Then 'the starts to move back' goes into the beginning of the next phase. So 30 seconds of your 40 seconds is in phase 1 and 10 seconds of it is in phase 2.

That's basically what we are saying.

[Yoozername]

As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

Note; In response to this...

Dorosh posted:
To answer Erik's comments, there should be a restriction on exactly how far a unit should be allowed to drive in reverse, especially if buttoned up. The chance of bogging should be increased, and if in a built up area the chance of driving into a building (especially if the vehicle has no vision cupola). I agree it should be slower - much slower - than driving forward. Bearing in mind that some armoured cars had two driver positions (one in front, one in back) and were specifically designed to drive in both directions, so they should not be penalized by reverse movement other than perhaps speed.]

From WWII

James A. White Jr., First Lieutenant
Company Commander, 67th Armored Regiment
Near Gereonsweiler, Germany, while serving as a platoon leader, I
directed the fire of my platoon on a Mark V tank which was trying
to reach a point on our left flank. We opened fire at 800 yards and
caused the Mark V to back up, and continued our fire up to 1,500
yards. The platoon consisted of three M4 tanks with 75-mm guns
and two M4 tanks with 76-mm guns. There were at least ten hits
which I saw personally by both the 75-mm and 76-mm guns. After
the Mark V had reached a defiladed position it scored a direct hit
on my tank, which penetrated and set fire to the tank.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

James A. White Jr., First Lieutenant
Company Commander, 67th Armored Regiment
Near Gereonsweiler, Germany, while serving as a platoon leader, I
directed the fire of my platoon on a Mark V tank which was trying
to reach a point on our left flank. We opened fire at 800 yards and
caused the Mark V to back up, and continued our fire up to 1,500
yards. The platoon consisted of three M4 tanks with 75-mm guns
and two M4 tanks with 76-mm guns. There were at least ten hits
which I saw personally by both the 75-mm and 76-mm guns. After
the Mark V had reached a defiladed position it scored a direct hit
on my tank, which penetrated and set fire to the tank.

I don't believe that the Panther mentioned in this account intentionally moved into the situation described. In fact, I'm sure that the TC and crew were utterly horrified to have been so compromised. That their situation was so dire as to cause them to reverse the vehicle in attempting to escape is easy to understand. It was another of those exigent cirumstances that I keep making reference to in trying to negotiate the smoke and mirrors attendant the topic, whatever Lewis might ordain it to be at the moment.

ONCE AGAIN, readers, please note that the maneuver outlined in the vignette above can be faithfully portrayed in PzC, via either a withdraw command or the failure of a morale check, as below:

Pzkw V engaged by enemy platoon
Pzkw V fails morale check
Pzkw V executes reverse movment
Pzkw V recovers morale
Pzkw V fires on enemy vehicle
Pzkw V destroys enemy vehicle

PoE (ivanmoe)

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

James A. White Jr., First Lieutenant
Company Commander, 67th Armored Regiment
Near Gereonsweiler, Germany, while serving as a platoon leader, I
directed the fire of my platoon on a Mark V tank which was trying
to reach a point on our left flank. We opened fire at 800 yards and
caused the Mark V to back up, and continued our fire up to 1,500
yards. The platoon consisted of three M4 tanks with 75-mm guns
and two M4 tanks with 76-mm guns. There were at least ten hits
which I saw personally by both the 75-mm and 76-mm guns. After
the Mark V had reached a defiladed position it scored a direct hit
on my tank, which penetrated and set fire to the tank.

Why didn't the Company Commander order the platoon to fire two shots and only two (No more, no less. Two shall be the number thou shalt fire, and the number of the firing shall be two. Three shalt thou not fire, neither fire thou once, excepting that thou then proceed to fire two. Four is right out) and themselves backup? That's what the debate is about.

[Yoozername]

Prince:  It was in response to Dorosh's post.  You really are out there.

Mobius:  Likewise. If you read the story, the company commander is acting as a platoon leader. He ordered the platoon to open fire. He did not order them to fire a specific number of rounds (what is that all about?). His tank is KO'd first. At that point, 'platoon' orders might have stopped. Not sure what else you think is going on.

And I started the thread. And there is more than one debate here.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
What I am saying is that it can certainly occur that a vehicle could move forward, fire a round or two, and START to maove backwards within 40 seconds.  It does not need to complete the reverse portion of its reverse during thoise 40 seconds.
I am also saying this is a drill or tactic.  Not a morale driven event.

Certainly. But let's call the point at the end of the second shot the end of the first phase. Then 'the starts to move back' goes into the beginning of the next phase. So 30 seconds of your 40 seconds is in phase 1 and 10 seconds of it is in phase 2.

That's basically what we are saying.

You can call anything you want a phase or a turn. That does not effect the fact that the game is modeling reality. Not that reality has to fit into the game.

The following:

(1)The German tank now advanced maybe 25 m, a second round flashed across and the Sherman tank blew up. The crew may nevertheless have gotten killed nearby. Obviously aware of the danger, the other Sherman tank was by now in full retreat. But our tank commander also didn't wait around to see who might now shoot at him. He too got into reverse (2)and barreled back down the incline, heaven help who was in his way

The time slice from (1) to (2) could certainly fit into 40 seconds or less. As I have already stated: not every afv crew may be able to do it. It may be a function of superior traing and experience, etc.

One does not have to complete the reverse move distance. Just start it.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Prince: It was in response to Dorosh's post. You really are out there.

If you don't want to be quoted, don't post.

On a side note...

I'd like the forum staff to take note of the fact that the member edited message #143 twenty-five minutes after I posted a response to it, in message #144.

What part of two quotes was it that he found convenient to alter?

I'd also encourage the staff to take notice of the fact that the revised text includes a quote from Michael Dorosh in a message that the third party posted on 9/4/06.

Oily fellow, that Lewis.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Yoozername]

Or you can just stop assuming you think you know what people are posting about.  Works that way also.

So the post did contain...

As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

And that was in direct response to Dorosh's post.  So what is your point again?  None? Thought as much.  You assumed you knew what was being discussed, and it just wasn't so in the end.  Too bad. And now you think you have something that must be brought to moderator's attention? That I clarified the post? Gee, what's the penalty for that?

You do come off as a very persistant 'tattle-tale' type personality.  How is that working out for you in Life?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Or you can just stop assuming you think you know what people are posting about. Works that way also.

So the post did contain...

As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

And that was in direct response to Dorosh's post. So what is your point again? None? Thought as much. You assumed you knew what was being discussed, and it just wasn't so in the end. Too bad. And now you think you have something that must be brought to moderator's attention? That I clarified the post? Gee, what's the penalty for that?

You do come off as a very persistant 'tattle-tale' type personality. How is that working out for you in Life?

Let's get a shot of this one, just for the record.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Yoozername]

You are trying to set a record?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

Note; In response to this...

Dorosh posted:
To answer Erik's comments, there should be a restriction on exactly how far a unit should be allowed to drive in reverse, especially if buttoned up. The chance of bogging should be increased, and if in a built up area the chance of driving into a building (especially if the vehicle has no vision cupola). I agree it should be slower - much slower - than driving forward. Bearing in mind that some armoured cars had two driver positions (one in front, one in back) and were specifically designed to drive in both directions, so they should not be penalized by reverse movement other than perhaps speed.]

From WWII

James A. White Jr., First Lieutenant
Company Commander, 67th Armored Regiment
Near Gereonsweiler, Germany, while serving as a platoon leader, I
directed the fire of my platoon on a Mark V tank which was trying
to reach a point on our left flank. We opened fire at 800 yards and
caused the Mark V to back up, and continued our fire up to 1,500
yards. The platoon consisted of three M4 tanks with 75-mm guns
and two M4 tanks with 76-mm guns. There were at least ten hits
which I saw personally by both the 75-mm and 76-mm guns. After
the Mark V had reached a defiladed position it scored a direct hit
on my tank, which penetrated and set fire to the tank.

He did it again!

As originally posted, and quoted by yours truly, the text above was lacking the entire first section, that which is now included and credited to an esteemed member, Michael Dorosh.

If the forum staff is gonna allow the member to go on altering his messages after a response has been tendered, then I humbly submit that they can kiss any sort of meaningful discussion on this forum goodbye.

Respectfully,

PoE (ivanmoe)

[Yoozername]

I often clarify posts.  And your point is?
 
Well.  Since you said  Goodbye.  I wish you well and good luck with that 'tattle-tale' thing. 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

And look, Mobius quoted the "original," also:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

James A. White Jr., First Lieutenant
Company Commander, 67th Armored Regiment
Near Gereonsweiler, Germany, while serving as a platoon leader, I
directed the fire of my platoon on a Mark V tank which was trying
to reach a point on our left flank. We opened fire at 800 yards and
caused the Mark V to back up, and continued our fire up to 1,500
yards. The platoon consisted of three M4 tanks with 75-mm guns
and two M4 tanks with 76-mm guns. There were at least ten hits
which I saw personally by both the 75-mm and 76-mm guns. After
the Mark V had reached a defiladed position it scored a direct hit
on my tank, which penetrated and set fire to the tank.

Why didn't the Company Commander order the platoon to fire two shots and only two (No more, no less. Two shall be the number thou shalt fire, and the number of the firing shall be two. Three shalt thou not fire, neither fire thou once, excepting that thou then proceed to fire two. Four is right out) and themselves backup? That's what the debate is about.

There's no mention of Dorosh, or the text from his 9/4/06 message, whatsoever.

That was all inserted, the first time, half and hour after my response to USERNAME.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Yoozername]

And like all threads being polluted by a troll..

There must be repetition. I AGAIN point out the first post had the following...

As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

We now return to our regularly scheduled trolling. Prince, make sure to get a 'snap-shot'..

You are a troll

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

And like all threads being polluted by a troll..

There must be repetition. I AGAIN point out the first post had the following...

As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

We now return to our regularly scheduled trolling. Prince, make sure to get a 'snap-shot'..

You are a troll

I'm gonna let this go now.

The forum staff has been alerted, and the members made aware of your tactics, of your documented history as a dissembler, and so on.

My preferneces as to adding a REVERSE command to both the ENGAGE and DEFEND menus has been noted, I'm sure.

My work here is done.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Yoozername]

Well, good luck then.  Off to another mission where you sense ulterior motives no doubt.  It must be a charmed life I am sure.
As to reversing over longer distances to cover...

I would say it was common in areas that would require it. By that I mean that IF a afv needed to keep its front towards the enemy, it would till it could get to some cover.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Bil H
Why make that distinction? Any vehicle regardless of task can come under fire and will need to have some capability to react other than just firing back... also, I would like to see it on a per-vehicle basis.. not Platoon. Why reverse the entire Platoon when only one or two vehicles need the action? That just feels wrong to me.

Need to. Indeed. Can do. No.

Should it be limited in terms of distance moved?
I would perhaps only allow reverse movement during the reaction phase.. why restrict the distance when that will automatically be restricted by the 20 seconds of reaction time? I wouldn't even reduce the speed in reverse.. if this is indeed a reaction this vehicle is not going to be carefully picking its way backwards but will be going as fast as they can until they are under some sort of cover or at least out of the LOF of the enemy unit.

If we are going to talk about reality let's take a real look.
The maximum reverse speed of a Panther at 3000r.p.m. is 4.0 kph (3.4kph @ 2500rpm). Moving 40 full seconds in reverse will net it 44m in 40 seconds. From a standing stop it might get only 22-33m (at constant acceleration).
Now lets say the Panther is moving forward at full speed and then decides to stop and then reverse. It probably will take 20-30m to stop and 10-20 seconds. The remaining time it will be reversing. So it probably wouldn't even get back to the point where it began the turn.
That is why the reverse reaction should be limited to engage and defend.

If the game is going to include that much reversing a column for reverse speed should be added. I don't know if there's that much data out there for reverse speeds on all the tanks.

I do not agree with this math or assumptions.

The Panther, using a shoot and scoot approach, would not be at full speed. If you know anything about these vehciles it takes quite awhile to reach full speed (maximum speed). You have to be on a flat strait road actually. I can show a source that states as much.

So the assumption about it taking 10-20 seconds to stop is not right. Neither is the distance.

A more realistic scenario is that a stationary Panther, with its engine already running, can accelerate forward perhaps 15-20 meters in 10-12 seconds or so. It can stop/settle in 3 seconds. It can fire one to two rounds in as little as 10 seconds (assuming a loaded round was ready before even moving).

It now has to wait 15 seconds to reverse if we follow the 40 second time lump. Its only chance of reversing is a failed morale check.

[Mobius]

I do not agree with this math or assumptions.

<shrug>

The Panther, using a shoot and scoot approach, would not be at full speed. If you know anything about these vehicles it takes quite awhile to reach full speed (maximum speed). You have to be on a flat strait road actually. I can show a source that states as much.

It wasn't addressing that. I was an answer to the moving full and slamming on the breaks and shooting and reversing question Bill had proposed.

So the assumption about it taking 10-20 seconds to stop is not right. Neither is the distance.
A more realistic scenario is that a stationary Panther, with its engine already running, can accelerate forward perhaps 15-20 meters in 10-12 seconds or so. It can stop/settle in 3 seconds. It can fire one to two rounds in as little as 10 seconds (assuming a loaded round was ready before even moving).

As expected you've disagreed with everyone else now you are disagreeing with yourself. Since moving 15-20 meters in 10-12 seconds is accelerating to 10.8-12kph. Stopping in 3 seconds from these speeds is equivalent to stopping in 11.5-12.7m from 46kph, the sustained max speed of a Panther. (55kph is maximum possible speed.)

It now has to wait 15 seconds to reverse if we follow the 40 second time lump. Its only chance of reversing is a failed morale check.

Using your example why not wait 15 seconds before moving forward? Now the turn ends immediately after the firing. The reverse taking place in the next turn or phase. Like a few of us are saying you can draw line between turns along the time continuum anywhere it makes sense.

BTW, speaking of drills, my friend who was a gunner on an US M60 during the '80s said the drill was 3 targets in 15 seconds. So the number being three. Three being the third number.....

[Yoozername]

Two is the number of the World War the game is modeling.  So the number is two.   World War Two being the time period.

Why not wait 15 seconds?  ..Er, because the game has no pause function?

I do not follow your math. Why can a tank at top speed stop in the same time period as one going slower?