Question for "tread heads" about the Sherman

[rocketman]

Just had an instance in FI that I don't believe I've had before. A mid Sherman got hit and it killed three crewmen but by some miracle no subsystems, MGs or main gun was damaged. So my question is; was the Sherman really fully operational with only two crewmen? In the game it can still drive around and fire the main gun at what seems a reasonable ROF. I checked Tank Encyclopedia but found nothing about it. 

[Cobetco]

i don't see why not? a driver and a Gunner is all you need to have a "working" tank. that doesn't mean it'll be an effective tank though.

[Michael Emrys]

I would expect that spotting would be drastically reduced as well as rate of fire if the main gun, but I have no idea how the game handles this. Also, all MGs but the coax should be inoperable (presumably no one to fire them).

Michael

[Sgt.Squarehead]

ROF fire and spotting should be massively curtailed and morale would probably be quite low too.....Scraping pieces of the other three crew members off the various equipment would probably be quite off-putting. 

IMHO they should save the tank then bail. 

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[rocketman]

The loss of a loader would cause the remaining two crewmen to shift positions all the time to get shots off and drive the tank, right? Even though anecdotal evidence, when this has happened to me before there has been no way to target the main gun manually (target line). I lean towards the option suggested above, save the tank and bail.

[A Canadian Cat]

5 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I would expect that spotting would be drastically reduced as well as rate of fire if the main gun, but I have no idea how the game handles this.

Yep, the spotting will be reduced for sure. The game actually considers each crew member as looking through thier view ports. So with only two crew they will be slow to spot. The rate of fire should also be reduced. I believe that should be modeled by the game too.

 

45 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

IMHO they should save the tank then bail. 

Yes, in real life withdrawal is the right thing to do. But we players often do things that run counter to what soldiers would have done. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

It's just not so visceral through a monitor & headphones I guess. 

Maybe having a mate chuck a bucket of lightly warmed offal over you every now and again would help? 

Edited May 6, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL indeed.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Or not. 

There's a strange and occasionally morbid irony to playing these games sometimes isn't there? 

Edited May 6, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[rocketman]

In the spirit of realism I think there are some things that the game should keep out of the player's control, such as crews from knocked out tanks IMO should be in a constant state of panic so you can't use them as combat/scout units. And in the case of this thread, retreat and/or bail.

[A Canadian Cat]

That wouldn't be popular. Not that I don't agree. So, in this case what is the criteria? Two crew members left means they bail and run for it? What about three? What about a three crew member vehicle? Or not crew size but: If a crew bails then they never recover? Just curious what you think would work.

[rocketman]

I was thinking along the lines of some kind of threshold for when a tank is combat-worthy and the crew can't do a sufficient job without very high risk for the tank or themselves. But for bailed crews, perhaps it is more fitting to have them instantly turn "brittle". That way you can command them but as soon as they come under fire they are likely to run away. You can use them for long range spotting, but not as a front line unit.

[sburke]

4 hours ago, rocketman said:

In the spirit of realism I think there are some things that the game should keep out of the player's control, such as crews from knocked out tanks IMO should be in a constant state of panic so you can't use them as combat/scout units. And in the case of this thread, retreat and/or bail.

I agree with Ian that would be too extreme, but my practice is armor crews once I regain control head for safety.  Personal choice to maintain my in game immersion

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, sburke said:

...but my practice is armor crews once I regain control head for safety.  Personal choice to maintain my in game immersion

Same here. But that puts players on their honor not to do unrealistic things just to win. Sometimes that can be trusted, sometimes not.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

Yep, I have a few opponents where we use a house rule like that but for others where we have not discussed it I as gamey as they come :-)

[rocketman]

I usually try to do the "right thing", especially when playing the AI (buddy aid as well), but if my oppo in PBEM uses them aggressively I tend to do the same if it will give me an advantage. But I hate myself for doing it. I like the idea of a house rule, but how/where do you draw the line of how to use them?

But is a "brittle" status too much to ask for a crew that has been through something as traumatic as being in a knocked-out tank?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

This is why I value the campaign format, it makes matters like these elementary.....Are you really going to risk completely losing a Sherman crew (who you know will receive replacements & a new tank in future missions) for the minor contribution they will make fighting dismounted.

'Brittle' status would work well to simulate surviving a tank brewing up IMHO.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[rocketman]

I like campaigns as well for the force preservation factor and that you have to think ahead to the next mission too. That's why an operational layer would be awesome for CM.

[Erwin]

+1

[A Canadian Cat]

Or full support to head to head play in campaigns. One of my top three freatures.

[Vanir Ausf B]

10 hours ago, IanL said:

Yep, I have a few opponents where we use a house rule like that but for others where we have not discussed it I as gamey as they come :-)

I laugh at your kamikazi crews as they charge my Panthers, "Urhaaah! Urhaaah! Urh-"*squish*

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Against Panthers it would be the much same if they were in their tanks! 

[Artemis258]

They still have the physical tank itself? I dunno guys, I ride a motorcycle and I think cars tare too dangerous a weapon to be given to under-trained civilians. Call it a sticky battering ram! 


...need to get me a game against @c3k sometime... I think I've subscribed to his strategy too long. 

[Badger73]

On 5/6/2017 at 5:09 PM, IanL said:

That wouldn't be popular. Not that I don't agree. So, in this case what is the criteria? Two crew members left means they bail and run for it? What about three? What about a three crew member vehicle? Or not crew size but: If a crew bails then they never recover? Just curious what you think would work.

Three crewmen (driver, loader, gunner) could still fight the vehicle defensively but in a very nervous state at reduced visibility and half their MG's.

Two crewmen could fire defensively at a very reduced rate of fire in a state of near panic and over-riding self-preservation.  They would either bail out if taking enemy fire or withdraw the vehicle to cover and safety.

[MikeyD]

The reduced crew remaining to fight might be considered Audie Murphy-level heroics, especially with the interior strewn with your mates guts and headless corpses. I'd imagine crew would be more likely to remain if the others are lightly wounded. You wouldn't want to hop out and abandon your mate with an ankle wound to his fate. There was a post elsewhere complaining about small arms fire entering a hatch entirely spooking the crew so they bail. So basically anything can happen. Fanatic crews will die where they stand rather than flee.