Would like to see tanks felling trees and going through houses...

[Bulletpoint]

I know this has been discussed a bit before, but...

00:20 Tank crushes thick tree

01:36 Tank goes straight through house

[womble]

At 00:21 or thereabouts, the camera cuts away to avoid showing the embarassed kitteh stuck on the root bole of the tree that levered up underneath it. You do, however, see the beginnings of the tracks lifting off the ground...

Sure tanks have the horsepower to smash through houses. And a roof tree landing on them probably wouldn't discommode them too much. Falling into a cellar, though, is a different matter, and even a roof tree could drop a beam into the running gear.

What you're looking at is propaganda/training video. Not combat usage.

[Oddball_E8]

Did you notice how the tank was moving extremely slow and with the turret pointed completely to the rear?

This is propaganda footage. This was simply not done in combat situations.

All accounts I've read about from real tankers say that it was simply not done because of the risk of throwing a track or getting the tank stuck, which would almost mean a death sentence for a tank in a combat situation.

Sure, smaller trees and such will be passable, and they are to a degree in the game.

You can drive a tank through light woods which abstracts the tank running down smaller trees.

But large trees and buildings just isn't something that you ran into/through during combat.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Classic, nowadays these videos normally show the smashing of a car.

[Bulletpoint]

Actually I thought after posting that it might be some propaganda stunt.. easy to say now!

[Pandur]

if someone is interessted in the tank through trees thingy,

there is a exellent test video on a tank driving through trees by the german bundeswehr, with leopard 1 tank, so ww2 tanks would probably have more problems then leo1.

its shows trials to drive certain distance through woods of increasing tree diameter and density. it even got narration but in german.

part1

part 2

part 3

the most relevant part for CM may be towards the end of video 2 and the video 3, video 1 is light woods.

again this is "modern" leopard 1, every ww2 tank will start to have problem sooner.

[Childress]

Better then felling trees would be the treatment of AFVs as solid objects, blocking LOS and LOF. We'd have sheltered infantry following in this lee of tanks during a cross country assault or penetrating built up zones as shown in archival photos. But this may require waiting for more powerful processors.

[niall78]

Basements are a huge minus I would say if you are driving a tank through a building.

I've seen table-top and board game rules before that had a random roll for a basement every time armour entered a building. It was a roll you never wanted to fail.

Also commercial or industrial buildings could potentially contain reinforced concrete walls in various forms. Pretty much like driving units onto dragons teeth anti-tank defences.

There's also the issue of building collapse and either damage to ancillary equipment on the tank due to falling rubble or getting buried and stuck in such a collapse.

I'd say most WW2 tank commanders avoid driving through buildings like the plague unless as a desperation manoeuvre if in need of a quick escape.

[Bulletpoint]

Still, I'd think tanks would be able to drive through the non-building walls in this game. And even if not able to drive all the way through in fear of losing a track, then at least ram a hole for others to pass through.

[Bulletpoint]

Better then felling trees would be the treatment of AFVs as solid objects, blocking LOS and LOF. We'd have sheltered infantry following in this lee of tanks during a cross country assault or penetrating built up zones as shown in archival photos. But this may require waiting for more powerful processors.

I agree, but don't they already block line of fire? I've seen many bullets deflect off tanks, even when targeting infantry behind them..

[snarre]

and again this is not importand thing to model in game , there are mutch more other things what to do first.

[Bulletpoint]

and again this is not importand thing to model in game , there are mutch more other things what to do first.

Well, I don't think it's a choice between doing one thing or doing another...

[Holman]

Well, I don't think it's a choice between doing one thing or doing another...

Well, it is when the whole engine depends on two programmers. The coding might not preclude these additional touches, but time is finite.

In my experience, the things that really need to be added to CM eventually get added to CM. This may be one of those things.

[LukeFF]

Still, I'd think tanks would be able to drive through the non-building walls in this game. And even if not able to drive all the way through in fear of losing a track, then at least ram a hole for others to pass through.

They do, if the wall is of the type that troops can jump over.

[Bulletpoint]

Well, it is when the whole engine depends on two programmers. The coding might not preclude these additional touches, but time is finite.

Certainly, but in this case the coding is already there. Small walls can be crushed by tanks. It would be trivial to make the same code apply to bigger walls as well.

Just a design choice really.

[Bulletpoint]

They do, if the wall is of the type that troops can jump over.

Yes, but I meant the bigger walls. Unless they are supposed to represent very thick, reinforced concrete, which I doubt being the case with farms in Normandy in 1944

[snarre]

if i remember right there was all ready talking this same thing earlier, chrish or other game maker told its not sou simble to do than you think and on my mind not wery importand thing to add game.

[Childress]

Better then felling trees would be the treatment of AFVs as solid objects, blocking LOS and LOF. We'd have sheltered infantry following in this lee of tanks during a cross country assault or penetrating built up zones as shown in archival photos. But this may require waiting for more powerful processors.

I agree, but don't they already block line of fire? I've seen many bullets deflect off tanks, even when targeting infantry behind them..

Afraid not. It's always been the case, afaik. The downside to infantry sheltering closely behind tanks is that if the tank gets brewed up the poor grunts end up in even worse shape. Something to consider if enemy AT is lurking about.

At any rate this will cease being a problem when the Intel Core i12s come out.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Vehicles do block LOF -- for enemy units -- but not LOS unless burning.

[sburke]

Vehicles do block LOF -- for enemy units -- but not LOS unless burning.

Yep. The issue I think that Bulletpoint is making is more that infantry can not really make use of that cover. They will not "trail" a tank and even if you get the vehicle and infantry speed down, some of those guys will always find a way to wander into incoming fire. That would require a movement type and TAC AI behavior.

As to tanks crushing large walls etc, most of the tankers who have chimed in on these type issues generally comment that we are too influenced by Hollywood and propaganda films. Tankers are much more careful about trying to make sure they do not damage their vehicle causing it to become a big metal pillbox.

[Bulletpoint]

It seems to be the common wisdom on these boards that tanks were really brittle and very cautious in WW2. They cannot even run over small bocage (large bocage of course is another matter).

I can't say for sure, it just seems ridiculous to me when my tank gets a damaged track from going slow through a wooden fence, and not even be able to risk poking its nose through what seems to be a thin brick wall, if that would mean opening up a vital flanking route for infantry.

With the caution these tankers display, you'd think they were driving priceless veteran cars, worrying about scratches im the paintwork, and not machines of war

[Baneman]

...With the caution these tankers display, you'd think they were driving priceless veteran cars, worrying about scratches im the paintwork, and not machines of war

It's because they are driving machines of war that they know a mistake ( bogged on a pile of bricks, formerly a thin brick wall, for example ) could get them killed.

Infinitely more worrying than a paintwork scratch

[womble]

This has been hashed to death. Fence damage is capped: it just makes it marginally easier for other damage sources to break the track because it's already slightly damaged. You have no idea about bocage: look it up. And tanks were prone to mechanical failure. Still are. People who've driven actual tanks for an actual living have contributed to the discussion and supported BFC's position on it. What reality (reality, not supposition, not fantasy) can you add?

[Bulletpoint]

This has been hashed to death. Fence damage is capped: it just makes it marginally easier for other damage sources to break the track because it's already slightly damaged. You have no idea about bocage: look it up. And tanks were prone to mechanical failure. Still are. People who've driven actual tanks for an actual living have contributed to the discussion and supported BFC's position on it. What reality (reality, not supposition, not fantasy) can you add?

I can add that in this game, I can order a tank to do lots of things that were not done in reality, such as reversing towards the enemy unbuttoned while shooting back at friendly troops, yet I cannot use the tank to ram down a wall, because that would mean a small risk that the tank might be immobilised. Bigger risks were surely taken in a war that killed millions.

We're not talking fantasy here, we're just talking common sense. At least that was my intention. If you disagree, that's fine with me, but please don't risk throwing a track over it

[Bulletpoint]

It's because they are driving machines of war that they know a mistake ( bogged on a pile of bricks, formerly a thin brick wall, for example ) could get them killed.

Infinitely more worrying than a paintwork scratch

It's a fair point, but we also have the rhino attachment that we can use to bust bocage even though it will quickly immobilise the tank. Surely someone decided that the risk was sometimes worth it.