Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I watched a video where it was talking about how a modern tank uses some combination of a laser and an onboard computer when aiming. So you point at what you want to hit and then the cannon does all the elevation and manoeuvre of the turret to make that happen. Point and click. Whereas, in something like Battlefield if I want to lob my extremely slow moving shell at another tank across the map I have to guesstimate from practice how much elevation you need. So you’ll often get both tanks in a game lobbing ranging shots at each other whilst they wiggle around behind hills to mess with each other. Which can last quite some time. It’s a related question but I assume this is a balance issue for video games?

It's probably a game balance thing, unless the game is set around the time of WW2. It wouldn't be a good idea to have a bunch of really tough and fast aimbots running around with an instakill explosive weapon.

Captain Jake would know more, pretty sure he was a tanker. If he doesn't see this you should maybe PM him.

In ww2 it was pretty much eyeballing. Modern tanks indeed have automation and you are accurate miles away(clear los starts to become issue) even on move on more modern tanks. That's why if you are seen you usually don't live long unless opponent has vastly older tech.

Would be not　that　interesting as a game though

tneva82 wrote:
In ww2 it was pretty much eyeballing. Modern tanks indeed have automation and you are accurate miles away(clear los starts to become issue) even on move on more modern tanks. That's why if you are seen you usually don't live long unless opponent has vastly older tech.

Would be not　that　interesting as a game though

It’s a little bizarre like. Usually video games are going the other way with you pretty much always playing a super soldier who can run fast, never tire, recover from fatal wounds in seconds etc etc. I am just amused that if I am Battlefield 4 it’s actually a nerf in terms of accuracy for the tank. Plus I need basically a direct hit on a guy with the thing. :/

Do games like ARMA have this same thing or do they try to simulate how the tank would work?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
In ww2 it was pretty much eyeballing. Modern tanks indeed have automation and you are accurate miles away(clear los starts to become issue) even on move on more modern tanks. That's why if you are seen you usually don't live long unless opponent has vastly older tech.

Would be not　that　interesting as a game though

It’s a little bizarre like. Usually video games are going the other way with you pretty much always playing a super soldier who can run fast, never tire, recover from fatal wounds in seconds etc etc. I am just amused that if I am Battlefield 4 it’s actually a nerf in terms of accuracy for the tank. Plus I need basically a direct hit on a guy with the thing. :/

Do games like ARMA have this same thing or do they try to simulate how the tank would work?

Tanks in most Battlefield games are rolling coffins. I only ever bother to use them when my lady is playing with me because the pintle is great at finishing enemies that walk off most of the hits from the main gun. Amusingly the tanks were far deadlier in Battlefield 1.

tneva82 wrote:
In ww2 it was pretty much eyeballing. Modern tanks indeed have automation and you are accurate miles away(clear los starts to become issue) even on move on more modern tanks. That's why if you are seen you usually don't live long unless opponent has vastly older tech.

Would be not　that　interesting as a game though

They could get scary good at it too. Fort Hood was originally founded for trailing the US Army Tanky Destroyer Force and one of their innovations was a full blown live fire range. Then Camp Hood was rapidly expanded over the course of the war into one giant training range for tank destroyers, tanks, and artillery. This worked out pretty great when it turned out the Germans didn't have many tanks left and US armored forces spent a lot of their time as mobile artillery. One of the longest tank-to-tank kills recorded in WWII was an M10 tank destroyer nailing a Tiger from three miles away in Italy.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
In ww2 it was pretty much eyeballing. Modern tanks indeed have automation and you are accurate miles away(clear los starts to become issue) even on move on more modern tanks. That's why if you are seen you usually don't live long unless opponent has vastly older tech.

Would be not　that　interesting as a game though

It’s a little bizarre like. Usually video games are going the other way with you pretty much always playing a super soldier who can run fast, never tire, recover from fatal wounds in seconds etc etc. I am just amused that if I am Battlefield 4 it’s actually a nerf in terms of accuracy for the tank. Plus I need basically a direct hit on a guy with the thing. :/

Do games like ARMA have this same thing or do they try to simulate how the tank would work?

Tanks in most Battlefield games are rolling coffins. I only ever bother to use them when my lady is playing with me because the pintle is great at finishing enemies that walk off most of the hits from the main gun. Amusingly the tanks were far deadlier in Battlefield 1.

I did good work in Bad Company 2 with the tank. Loved how the pyrotechnics and destruction was so over the top. Drop the hammer whenever you fired. In the Chili desert map I used to make a crater and then hide the tank so only the turret was visible; then just sniped the Abrams as they thundered down the road. Can still remember when I got an Apache across the map with a tank. Also the machine gun on that was a beast.

 LordofHats wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
In ww2 it was pretty much eyeballing. Modern tanks indeed have automation and you are accurate miles away(clear los starts to become issue) even on move on more modern tanks. That's why if you are seen you usually don't live long unless opponent has vastly older tech.

Would be not　that　interesting as a game though

They could get scary good at it too. Fort Hood was originally founded for trailing the US Army Tanky Destroyer Force and one of their innovations was a full blown live fire range. Then Camp Hood was rapidly expanded over the course of the war into one giant training range for tank destroyers, tanks, and artillery. This worked out pretty great when it turned out the Germans didn't have many tanks left and US armored forces spent a lot of their time as mobile artillery. One of the longest tank-to-tank kills recorded in WWII was an M10 tank destroyer nailing a Tiger from three miles away in Italy.

Dude. A three mile hit from a bloody M10 during WWII is insane. I had no idea. How the hell did they even do that?

 trexmeyer wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
In ww2 it was pretty much eyeballing. Modern tanks indeed have automation and you are accurate miles away(clear los starts to become issue) even on move on more modern tanks. That's why if you are seen you usually don't live long unless opponent has vastly older tech.

Would be not　that　interesting as a game though

They could get scary good at it too. Fort Hood was originally founded for trailing the US Army Tanky Destroyer Force and one of their innovations was a full blown live fire range. Then Camp Hood was rapidly expanded over the course of the war into one giant training range for tank destroyers, tanks, and artillery. This worked out pretty great when it turned out the Germans didn't have many tanks left and US armored forces spent a lot of their time as mobile artillery. One of the longest tank-to-tank kills recorded in WWII was an M10 tank destroyer nailing a Tiger from three miles away in Italy.

Dude. A three mile hit from a bloody M10 during WWII is insane. I had no idea. How the hell did they even do that?

Would quite like a source for it as google is returning nothing.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
In ww2 it was pretty much eyeballing. Modern tanks indeed have automation and you are accurate miles away(clear los starts to become issue) even on move on more modern tanks. That's why if you are seen you usually don't live long unless opponent has vastly older tech.

Would be not　that　interesting as a game though

They could get scary good at it too. Fort Hood was originally founded for trailing the US Army Tanky Destroyer Force and one of their innovations was a full blown live fire range. Then Camp Hood was rapidly expanded over the course of the war into one giant training range for tank destroyers, tanks, and artillery. This worked out pretty great when it turned out the Germans didn't have many tanks left and US armored forces spent a lot of their time as mobile artillery. One of the longest tank-to-tank kills recorded in WWII was an M10 tank destroyer nailing a Tiger from three miles away in Italy.

Dude. A three mile hit from a bloody M10 during WWII is insane. I had no idea. How the hell did they even do that?

Geography of Italy, with an M10 nice and high on a mountain road overlooking a long valley with a tank on the other end. EDIT: And sitting here thinking about it, that range is kind of long. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. It's something silly but yeah my brain may be mixing something up here.

The source (pretty sure) is Harry Yeide's book The Tank Killers: The History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force. Pretty pretty sure. There's only a handful of books on the subject of the Tank Destroyer Force and Yeide's is the one that spends a lot of time examining the development of Camp Hood alongside the advances of armored doctrine during the war.

EDIT EDIT: I found it! The engagement occurred during the advance up the Liri Valley in the fighting around Cassino. An M10 of the 701st TD Battalion assigned to direct fire support engaged a pair of Tigers stalking around a rail line on May 23. Both tanks were hit in the mantle, disabling their guns, and one was destroyed by subsequent shots. I was wrong on the range. The killing shot was scored at 3200 yards, which is 1.8 miles. So I added 1.2 miles there somehow XD My bad. Still fething impressive. I didn't remember there being a second Tiger in the account.