More Pie in the sky questions about CM2:Normandy

[akd]

This is something I admit I haven't given much thought to. One does not usually see photos of a squad or a even platoon lugging a bazooka around if they were engaged in offensive operations, yet one reads of situations where the lieutenant or the captain calls for one. Normal infantry did not usually have a deuce and a half sitting around nearby, although armored infantry might well have a halftrack they could send back to. Paratroops jumped with theirs.

I get the impression that although it might not have been official, someone within a company was a designated bazookaman. That could have been platoon practice too. But if he wasn't lugging the thing around all the time, where was it, and its ammunition, stashed?

I suppose the whole question revolved around the mission and perceived need. If the company expected to run into German tanks or bunkers, they would bring a bazooka or two along. Otherwise, they would be left behind.

I'm just thinking out loud here, does anyone know anything for certain about actual practice in the field?

Michael

For normal US infantry battalions, bazookas were held as unallocated weapons at the Company HQ level, and the Company HQ had both organic transport and men without assigned tasks who could potentially man the bazookas if they weren't allocated to a subordinate unit. Bazookas were also in the Battalion AT platoon, which had transport, and in the Heavy Weapons Co.'s HMG and Mortar Platoons, which also had transport.

Parachute (1944), Glider (1944) and Ranger Battalions are a different matter. Bazookas were typically unallocated at the various HQ levels, but someone must have been responsible for transporting them. The exception might be the Ranger Battalion, where I believe the bazookas were held by each platoon's Weapons Section.

I think it would be rather a break in immersion if a gun whose crew is WIA/KIA but not destroyed cannot be re-crewed.

Also, Canada Guy's above-quoted post illustrates the difference between "knocked out" (combat ineffective but more or less intact otherwise) and "destroyed" (combat ineffective on account of being in many pieces).

With some vehicles in CM:SF, it is already possible to have the entire crew become casualties without the vehicle being destroyed and still be able to man the (now "dismounted") vehicle with other personnel, so I don't see how this would be a huge leap.

[Pvt. Ryan]

To make weapons available in scenarios with no vehicles present you could have a "supply depot" that contains the extra equipment and ammo that would normally be available to a particular unit and let the player equip his troops from it at setup. Once the game starts the depot would disappear. You could either have a standard load-out available or the scenario designer could pick and choose what is included.

[silverstars]

To make weapons available in scenarios with no vehicles present you could have a "supply depot" that contains the extra equipment and ammo that would normally be available to a particular unit and let the player equip his troops from it at setup. Once the game starts the depot would disappear. You could either have a standard load-out available or the scenario designer could pick and choose what is included.

Or you may possibly code a "Bunker" that provides no cover and shows a bunch of ammo boxes/crates that you use the "Aquire" function on. You would be able to move it around during set up that way, then it would be immobile for the rest of the game, but still useable. You could then split teams to use as runners for ammo during extended firefights. Again, I have no concept what coding would be required for that, but it sounds both realistic and doable.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I don't know how realistic in-game supply would be for WWII. It would make sense for defenders in prepared positions.

[Lanzfeld]

As it is now, I load up my troops with all the ammo from the Strykers at the start of a battle because there is no penalty to do so. They dont seem to get "loaded down". They can run just as far. I hope this gets fixed.

[Michael Emrys]

What about the individual capturing the weapon's training on that weapon - at best it would be practically nil - in most cases it would be nil...

This, I think, is a crucial question. Operating an AT gun—for instance—was probably not a normal part of basic infantry training. Yes, one hears of occasions when it was done and even done successfully. But the very exceptionality of those occasions is the reason they get recorded in the first place. If BFC decides to allocate coding time to this issue, IMO it should be along the lines of an abandoned weapon can be recrewed by its original crew, or if recrewed by untrained friendly troops it can be operated with penalties (such as accuracy and speed of operation). If recrewed by troops from another army, the penalties on operation should be extremely severe.

Frankly, I am sceptical that BFC is especially interested in taking this issue up when there are so many other matters of much wider application than this very narrow one.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I don't know how realistic in-game supply would be for WWII. It would make sense for defenders in prepared positions.

I agree totally. And in fact, in CMx1 defenders usually started with larger ammo loadouts.

Michael

[Lanzfeld]

Since this is a CM:N question thread...

I don't suppose that we will ever see weapons damage graphically displayed on vehicles like in TOW2? Even if it is just penetration holes?

Adds so much "feeling" to the game.

[Dietrich]

I have recently finished reading A Bridge Too Far, and the Brits fixed bayonets and cleared landing fields in HtH. Also, Frost's men engaged German troops in some fierce HtH combat in the buildings surrounding the bridge several times, especially during infiltration attempts by the Germans.

In WW2, close-quarter combat/hand-to-hand combat was (to put it broadly) a matter either of wielding your weapon like a club with a blade on one end or of actually using your hands to beat down or grapple with the enemy. The vast majority of infantrymen back then had bolt-action rifles, which were not capable of firing bursts, and thus an rifleman encountering an enemy at point-blank range in a trench or in a house would -- on account of the bolt-action-ness of his weapon -- only have time to snap off a single shot (if at all) before he waded in with bayonet and stock.

German infantrymen often wielded their entrenching tools (spades) in hand-to-hand, preferring these to their bayonets in many instances.

With some vehicles in CM:SF, it is already possible to have the entire crew become casualties without the vehicle being destroyed and still be able to man the (now "dismounted") vehicle with other personnel, so I don't see how this would be a huge leap.

On the flip side of that, plenty of times an Abrams or Stryker or Bradley or LAV or AAV of mine has taken a hit which renders it "destroyed" (at which point the crew bails out), but when I check the damage tab to see what parts or systems got wrecked, nothing which would prevent the vehicle from, say, reversing out of LOF is has a big X or even a small one, and sometimes the crew bails out after a hit even if none of them are WIA/KIA and the tank/vehicle is not immobilized. In such instances, I can't help but wonder: What are the criteria for a tank/vehicle being "knocked out" and the crew bailing out?

I don't know how realistic in-game supply would be for WWII. It would make sense for defenders in prepared positions.

Is there no recorded instance of attacking troops running low on ammo and sending runners back for more magazines or belts? (But don't get me wrong -- I do agree that being able to readily re-supply squads and such would be more likely for defending troops in prepared positions.)

a German AT gun is knocked out because of casualties. If I were leading German units, I would want some men no matter what they were currently doing to get that AT gun up and running again. Especially if an enemy tank existed

However, the ability to re-crew enemy and friendly weapons is not a deal breaker in any way for me, but I would love to see it especially AT guns.

I find it interesting that more than one person has said "I don't care too much about re-crewing weapons, except in the case of AT guns." But why just AT guns? What if you were playing, for example, the German defenders in a scenario where the attacking Americans had no armor or vehicles but outnumbered you five to one? Would you not care if the men manning one (or all) of your tripod-mounted MG42s were taken out? Would you not care if the men handling one of your on-map 81mm mortars* were rendered WIA/KIA? I know I would care.

* By the summer of 1944, the Germans were often using 120mm mortars for battalion-level fire support and dispersing individual 81mm mortars to line rifle companies for more focused fire support.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Is there no recorded instance of attacking troops running low on ammo and sending runners back for more magazines or belts? (But don't get me wrong -- I do agree that being able to readily re-supply squads and such would be more likely for defending troops in prepared positions.)

I honestly don't know, but in CMSF we have armored vehicles that fight pretty closely with the infantry and can resupply the troops very quickly. Is there a WWII equivalent? I know we gamers like to use halftracks as IFVs, but did they really get close enough to the shooting to be useful for quick resupply on a regular basis? Did they carry stores of ammo and equipment to be used by the infantry they carried? I can see where an offensive push would come to a halt and units would take time to send men to the rear for more ammo, but I've had the impression that the men pretty much carried all the ammo they were going to get for a day's fighting.

I'd love to see troops resupply because nothing in CMx1 would frustrate me more than to have my men run out of ammo halfway through a battle; I just don't know how realistic it is. BFCs response had always been to use your ammo judiciously.

[Flanker15]

On the flip side of that, plenty of times an Abrams or Stryker or Bradley or LAV or AAV of mine has taken a hit which renders it "destroyed" (at which point the crew bails out), but when I check the damage tab to see what parts or systems got wrecked, nothing which would prevent the vehicle from, say, reversing out of LOF is has a big X or even a small one, and sometimes the crew bails out after a hit even if none of them are WIA/KIA and the tank/vehicle is not immobilized. In such instances, I can't help but wonder: What are the criteria for a tank/vehicle being "knocked out" and the crew bailing out?

The systems in the damage tab are parts that can be damaged without losing the whole vehicle too. There are other parts (that I assume have their own hit boxes and stats) that aren't listed (like the hull itself, fuel tank or ammo). If these are lost or explode the tank is considered destroyed even though there is no real display or indicator as to what has destroyed the tank, unless it's on fire or exploded.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry, just catching up on this thread.

Generally speaking we have to be very careful about dedicating time to "outlier" possibilities. There are a million things that probably happened here and there over the course of such a huge campaign as that of the Western Front (Eastern Front goes well beyond huge . My best example of this is one I've been using since the CMBO days... what I call the MG42 Bovine Meat Sponge situation. In brief...

A platoon of US infantry was pinned down by a single MG42. Everytime they tried to flank it the thing blazed away on them. Well, some enterprising soldier found a barn with a bunch of cows in it. They herded them into the kill zone and ran behind them to get into a dead zone which, in turn, let them flank the MG position. The MG42 killed the cows, the American infantry men killed the MG42 crew.

Points to consider:

1. This is a historically documented event which is entirely plausible.

2. It had a tactically significant impact on that battle.

3. It would probably be practical to do it within the space of a typical CM battle.

4. There is no code for cows, nor any code for using them as a wall of hamburger helper

The question is, should we support such a thing because it happened? I think 99.9999% of you guys would say "no". Intuitively we all know that this maybe happened one or two times out of a couple million or so tactical engagements at this level. Any time spent supporting such a massive outlier would be a gross misallocation of development resources. Right? Right.

However, it goes a step further. When we provide support for a particular tactic, even if unintentionally, it will get used if a player perceives it to be beneficial (perception is more important than actual results in our experience). The use of that tactic can then be far, far out of proportion to how it was used in real life. This then leads to a fundamental problem with supporting outlier type situations:

The outlier situation is supported to make the game more realistic, but if it is used unrealistically often then that lowers the overall realism of the tactical environment.

Or put another way, if the Bovine Meat Sponge thing worked, then every time cows were found in a scenario the player would likely try to find a way of using them ("friendly cows") or killing them to denny the other player use of them ("enemy cows"). This in turn leads at least a portion of the battle to be twisted into focusing on something which is completely wrong to focus on from a historical perspective.

ASL veterans often begrudgingly admit that there were a some detailed features in ASL that were abused. The one most often cited is the ability to set fires to things. This was not a common tactic in WW2, to say the least, but according to the ASL players themselves it was common to see in ASL games. Some players probably adopted it as a signature tactic, which likely earned them the nickname "firebug" The use of such tactic is "gamey" and therefore, no matter how realistically portrayed, something which lowers the overall level of realism.

Did non-heavy weapons crews man friendly heavy weapons in real life when the situation was just right for it? Sure. Did this happen often? No, definitely not. Same thing with manning enemy weapons. It certainly happened that small arms were used when the situation was desperate enough to justify the risk, but those instances were few and far in between. Use of larger captured weapons usually did not happen on the fly, but rather after said weapons were retrieved, serviced, deliberately crewed, trained on (even if hastily), and then sent back to the front with clear knowledge of that fact given to the surrounding friendly units (Germans using T-34s in combat, for example) in order to minimize the risk of friendly fire.

As with any rule there are exceptions. The German's love of the PPSh, for example, is one of the rare examples of a systemic use of captured enemy weapons. And since it was relatively common we supported it in CMBB. But it wasn't done on the fly and so CMBB didn't support that. It also wasn't something that could have unbalanced the game since, effectively, it's just a MP40 with more ammo (not that we simulated that in CMx1, but it is simulated in CMx2).

The conclusion we always come to when discussing these things is that the improvised use of enemy weaponry within the context of a CM sized battle is uncommon enough that supporting it would lower overall realism of the environment, not increase it. The ability for friendly units to man weapons they are not trained on is also uncommon enough that we shouldn't do it.

The one exception to that would be something like a MG. Soldiers would know how to fire it and keep it fed with ammo even if not explicitly trained to do so. If a friendly MG crew was taken out of action without damaging the weapon, and the conditions warranted sectioning off some men to crew it, it probably would be recrewed even if temporarily (i.e. until it jammed or the ammo ran out). Unfortunately, this poses some pretty significant coding and UI issues that would have to be coded around. Therefore, we're not planning on supporting this type of weapons swapping for CMx2 as we didn't for CMx1. However, this is something that is on that line between outlier/uncommon and outlier/common, so there is actually a case to be made for including it. We're simply saying we don't think it's crossed the line into being worth dedicating the resources to making it happen.

Hope that adds some perspective

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Returning to the issue of unallocated weapons. In CM:SF this is accomplished by having them stuck in a ride of some sort. This approach has run into very few problems except for what to do with the rides are left out of the scenario. Usually people include the vehicles since that would be SOP in real life, but in WW2 the rides often weren't present on the battlefield. As AKD pointed out they were stuck in a soft-skin truck in the rear and brought forward "as needed". This means in CM: Normandy we're going to have to allow scenario designers (and QB users) the ability to have unallocated weapons optionally preallocated. There's no UI support for this yet, but there will have to be.

Steve

[stikkypixie]

Returning to the issue of unallocated weapons. In CM:SF this is accomplished by having them stuck in a ride of some sort. This approach has run into very few problems except for what to do with the rides are left out of the scenario. Usually people include the vehicles since that would be SOP in real life, but in WW2 the rides often weren't present on the battlefield. As AKD pointed out they were stuck in a soft-skin truck in the rear and brought forward "as needed". This means in CM: Normandy we're going to have to allow scenario designers (and QB users) the ability to have unallocated weapons optionally preallocated. There's no UI support for this yet, but there will have to be.

Steve

Could you please change the way you pick up weapons so you can don't have to go into vehicles first before being able to click the acquire button?

[Battlefront.com]

That's the plan! We just have to implement it so the vehicles for that formation get "shorted" the same amount allocated to the infantry, thereby avoiding having 2x the weapons within the formation.

Steve

[Sixxkiller]

So cows are now "officially" more realistic than Space Lobsters. Now the Bovine grogs must fight over what kind we need to include.

[theFightingSeabee]

While on the subject: When you click acquire, you select something from the list and the list goes away. You have to re-click acquire. I'd like to be able to choose multiple items from the list.

[theFightingSeabee]

So cows are now "officially" more realistic than Space Lobsters. Now the Bovine grogs must fight over what kind we need to include.

So you're a grog grog? Got to sort out the cow grogs from the barrel grogs!

[John Kettler]

silverstars,

Captured French tanks should be in the Airborne module. See, for example, a roadblock defense account in which the Screaming Eagles repelled a night attack by one in S.L.A. Marshall's NIGHT DROP.

Combatintman,

According to Anthony Cordesman, Syria does have some antitank guns in its inventory, but they're considered obsolete.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3eZK7cm6pjoC&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=syrian+antitank+guns&source=bl&ots=n1SBGeV42C&sig=VrAzHtNTx-0YZydCoQMt3lOlBm0&hl=en&ei=zL_GSeajA5mMsQOh2unzBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

U.S. Airborne units should be able to use, at the very least, German small arms, since this was explicitly part of the training. Believe this was true for the British Paras, and I know it was true for commando units. Not sure whether vanilla GIs got actual hands on training with the standard German small arms, but the intel docs covering them in how to use detail definitely existed. I have one that covers the 1942 era stuff clear up through the sIG33.

I think it's important for support weapon crews to be able to operate as infantry when needed, to be able to recrew weapons, and to be appropriately armed the same way their historical counterparts were. Not only do attacks on the guns, howitzers and mortars have to be repelled at times, but the historical record clearly shows that support units were stripped at time to man the line, provide patrols, etc. Such crews were not equipped the same as line infantry. I think that tactical resupply is important to model, and it definitely figures into numerous battle accounts.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Dietrich]

The one exception to that would be something like a MG. Soldiers would know how to fire it and keep it fed with ammo even if not explicitly trained to do so. If a friendly MG crew was taken out of action without damaging the weapon, and the conditions warranted sectioning off some men to crew it, it probably would be recrewed even if temporarily (i.e. until it jammed or the ammo ran out). Unfortunately, this poses some pretty significant coding and UI issues that would have to be coded around.

Might I be correct in supposing that the "coding and UI issues" relate at least in part to how hard it might be to make the AI know how to re-crew "de-manned" HMGs and such?

Therefore, we're not planning on supporting this type of weapons swapping for CMx2 as we didn't for CMx1. However, this is something that is on that line between outlier/uncommon and outlier/common, so there is actually a case to be made for including it. We're simply saying we don't think it's crossed the line into being worth dedicating the resources to making it happen.

So if the enemy wounds/kills the men manning my MG42 or M1919, I'm something resembling screwed? Can't detach a couple/few guys from a nearby squad and have them re-crew it? I must protest.

However, if you're not planning on making crews of vehicles of the same type able to man vehicles other than the ones they started in, I guess it's not so big a deal if HMGs cannot be re-crewed. (In other words, say I'm playing a Villers Bocage scenario and my "Michael Wittmann" Tiger throws a track; it would be awesome if it could work for another Tiger to drive up alongside the immobilized one, bail out the crew, and then have the "Michael Wittmann" crew climb into the intact Tiger and rejoin the battle.)

Returning to the issue of unallocated weapons. In CM:SF this is accomplished by having them stuck in a ride of some sort. This approach has run into very few problems except for what to do with the rides are left out of the scenario. Usually people include the vehicles since that would be SOP in real life, but in WW2 the rides often weren't present on the battlefield. As AKD pointed out they were stuck in a soft-skin truck in the rear and brought forward "as needed". This means in CM: Normandy we're going to have to allow scenario designers (and QB users) the ability to have unallocated weapons optionally preallocated. There's no UI support for this yet, but there will have to be.

Could it work to have something resembling an MG pit (a large-ish foxhole surrounded by sandbags on three sides and covered with camouflage netting) serve as a micro weapons cache? A squad or team could "enter" the pit, and then the Acquire menu would light up; from there they could get more magazines (or stripper clips), more belts of ammo, and (perhaps) even more grenades.

[Combatintman]

silverstars,

Captured French tanks should be in the Airborne module. See, for example, a roadblock defense account in which the Screaming Eagles repelled a night attack by one in S.L.A. Marshall's NIGHT DROP.

Combatintman,

According to Anthony Cordesman, Syria does have some antitank guns in its inventory, but they're considered obsolete.

Regards,

John Kettler

Considered obsolete they may be (D-44 and MT-12) but the things are still there - and Syria has at least 2 Brigades of them. Not withstanding the anti-tank guns you are likely to find in some of the manoeuvre formations. Anyway talking of obsolete - captured French tanks in Normandy smacks of 'Hello, pot this is Kettle (if you'll forgive the pun!!) over'. So if you insist on having your obsolete tanks in Normandy I can insist on my obsolete anti-tank guns in CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

Dietrich,

Might I be correct in supposing that the "coding and UI issues" relate at least in part to how hard it might be to make the AI know how to re-crew "de-manned" HMGs and such?

Partly. Crewing basically compatible weapons isn't such a big deal when any one aspect of it is looked at. In fact, the total development/testing time isn't all that big. It's just that when we look at the time needed to get that feature into the game and working as it should we see far more valid features not getting implemented. Our time is not infinite, so we have to choose what we add very carefully. Otherwise we could be coding a single game for the next 10 years and still not have a "complete" game to show for it. Things which are "outliers" are automatically pushed further down the list because they won't be missed as much as something like, oh, say bridges, water, placeable trenches, etc.

However, if you're not planning on making crews of vehicles of the same type able to man vehicles other than the ones they started in, I guess it's not so big a deal if HMGs cannot be re-crewed. (In other words, say I'm playing a Villers Bocage scenario and my "Michael Wittmann" Tiger throws a track; it would be awesome if it could work for another Tiger to drive up alongside the immobilized one, bail out the crew, and then have the "Michael Wittmann" crew climb into the intact Tiger and rejoin the battle.)

That is far easier to do, in all regards, but it isn't that important to the overall game compared to other things. First of all, generally speaking that sort of thing didn't happen and when it did happen it wasn't within the scope of a single battle. Almost everything about Villers Bocage is an "outlier", which is why everybody is so obsessed with it If it would "routine" it wouldn't have dozens of books written about that specific engagement.

Could it work to have something resembling an MG pit (a large-ish foxhole surrounded by sandbags on three sides and covered with camouflage netting) serve as a micro weapons cache? A squad or team could "enter" the pit, and then the Acquire menu would light up; from there they could get more magazines (or stripper clips), more belts of ammo, and (perhaps) even more grenades.

Yes, and we've already thought about that. However, we haven't gotten to the point of deciding if that's a good thing to do or not. From a code standpoint it's no extra work, so it's merely deciding if there are gameplay reasons to not do it. Without having thought of it that much, I tend to think it's something that would be a good thing to add.

Another one we're planning on doing are Command Posts and Observation Posts. Basically, "vehicles" which have nothing more than higher and lower levels of communications equipment in them. That gets us a MUCH better simulation of field phones and non-portable radios than CMx1 had because if they aren't manned or are destroyed their C2 functionality is lost. In CMx1 you could move around HQs with very little regard for historical reality.

Steve

[akd]

That is far easier to do, in all regards, but it isn't that important to the overall game compared to other things. First of all, generally speaking that sort of thing didn't happen and when it did happen it wasn't within the scope of a single battle. Almost everything about Villers Bocage is an "outlier", which is why everybody is so obsessed with it If it would "routine" it wouldn't have dozens of books written about that specific engagement.

Actually shifting crews in battle was not at all uncommon. Not surprising considering that tanks were very frequently knocked out or disabled without loss of the crew, and a tank company or tank platoon leader is not going to sit out a battle because a track got blown off or because he is stuck in the mud. COs would switch rides as frequently as needed, often immediately after having a tank shot out from under them. It was imperative to keep the unit leader in the fight, moving with his unit, staying in radio contact, and maintaining awareness of the developing situation. For a tank unit CO, this could often only be accomplished in another tank from their unit.

For example, if I recall correctly, Carius recounts multiple instances of doing this in his memoir Tigers in the Mud. And here is a great example from the Allied side during the Gazala Line battles:

The newly arrived M3 Grants had been divided fairly evenly among the 8th Army units, with the hope that their presence would boost morale. In the early morning of May 27th the 4th Armoured Brigade was warned of a strong enemy force approaching from the southwest. With a light squadron of M3 Stuarts about 2,000 yards in front, the Grants of "B" and "C" squadrons of 3 RTR moved out in line formation. Within 10 minutes they received reports of large dust clouds about 3 miles ahead. By the time the Grants had closed ranks with their Stuarts, large formations of PzKpfw.IIIs and IVs had been identified.

These were the forward elements of 8th Pz.Regt., and when the range closed to 1,000 yards the Grants opened fire. For the first time in the desert war the Germans were facing tanks that outranged them! Although suffering heavy losses 15th PzDiv. pressed forward and by noon the remaining Grants, their ammo exhausted, were forced to withdraw. The leader of "C" squadron had had 3 Grants shot out from under him, and "B" squadron's leader was on his fourth tank. Out of the original 19 Grants, only 7 arrived at their rendezvous point to refuel and rearm. The fighting continued throughout the afternoon and by the end of the day 3 RTR was down to 4 Grants and 8 Stuarts.

http://www.geocities.com/firefly1002000/gazala.html

Anyways, you can swap the crew of, say, a TOW humvee in CMSF, so seems a minor leap.

[akd]

And another example from the German side, where an Oberstleutnant has his tank shot out from under him and is provided a replacement in the midst of a battle:

Oberst Eberbach gave his radio operator an order. He called the First Battalion and a short time later a new tank arrived and Oberstleutnant von Oppeln-Bronikowski and his crew climbed aboard. The tank's previous crew got out and grudgingly set to work repairing the shot-up track of Oppeln's panzer.

And from the Gulf War, with a most appropiate simile ...

But Steede would have none of that. Like any good cavalryman with his horse shot out from under him, Steede looked for another horse--in this case, his savior's tank. Hastily demoting Smith to loader, Steede took the reins as tank commander and roared off to join the battle again.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7cEIlIvhq-QC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=tank+shot+out+from+under+him&source=bl&ots=6Dxk12HHj0&sig=YIDIoOct9e7BYS-rBnYoz_2nyBY&hl=en&ei=OATHSbOlKILvnQfogoyqDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result