Pistols vs Truppen

[Fenris]

Armed with just a pistol on a battlefield crew's should be concerned only with GTFO of there or back into their vehicle if it's operational irrespective of how theoretically good a pistol is for close in fighting. How many reloads do they get? Can a quick fix be to give them only 1 or perhaps no reloads? (note I've not played CMBN for months).

-F

[YankeeDog]

Armed with just a pistol on a battlefield crew's should be concerned only with GTFO of there or back into their vehicle if it's operational irrespective of how theoretically good a pistol is for close in fighting. How many reloads do they get? Can a quick fix be to give them only 1 or perhaps no reloads? (note I've not played CMBN for months).

-F

Agree, for the most part. Some sort of "dumbing down" of AFV crews when dismounted would probably be a good idea.

As for current ammo loads, in CMBN U.S. Tankers armed with an M1911A1 pistol usually carry 21 rounds (3 clips) for the pistol. This much ammo definitely isn't going to last them very long in a firefight.

Occasionally, though, one crew member of the tank has a Thompson or M3 Grease Gun, in which case he'll carry 90 rounds (also 3 clips, just larger clips).

And since teams share ammo collectively in CMBN, if a dismounted tank crews has an SMG, then effectively everyone in that crew has more ammo. Though the SMG will definitely burn through that ammo very quickly.

[Rocky Balboa]

This thread seems to focus on dismounted US tank crews and their uncanny success using the M1911. Do we have similar issues with dismounted German tank crews?

If the German crews don't exhibit this behavior then it may be an issue with the weapon not being modeled correctly as opposed to something wrong with dismounted crews in general ...

[Ranger33]

I have a Glock, and while it is fairly accurate at those ranges, there isn't anyone shooting back, my hands aren't shaking (from fear, adrenaline, seeing your buddy exploded inside a tank, being suddenly tossed onto an active battlefield), and the targets are very cooperatively motionless. In the same situation, a rifle is much more manageable, at all but the shortest ranges. The size and length of the gun is a bit more forgiving to unsteady hands, plus you can brace it against the ground or whatever is handy. The rapid fire of a pistol might be good for suppression, but you aren't going to hit anything if you are firing fast anyway.

I think some kind of permanent broken morale would solve the problem. In all my readings of WW2 accounts, I have never seen an instance of a dismounted tank crew doing anything besides running for their lives or hiding.

[YankeeDog]

In all my readings of WW2 accounts, I have never seen an instance of a dismounted tank crew doing anything besides running for their lives or hiding.

Definitely the vast majority of the time, the tank crews seem to conclude that once their tank is knocked out, their job is to keep themselves alive and try to get back to friendly lines.

However, I have read a few accounts of tankers continuing the fight sans tank on both sides. Definitely not common. But not unheard of, either.

For the Americans, some of the accounts I've read of the 761st Tank Battalion's history come to mind foremost. Then again, the hardships the men of the 761st had to endure just to achieve the right to fight in the first place were pretty incredible, so you could probably say they were pretty "battle hardened" before they ever fired a shot in anger. As such, their actions under stress may not be a good case study of what the "typical" WWII tanker might do.

[Sergei]

Minor niggle: I do feel obligated to note it should be "... Kill five men with his Colt." Standard pistol sidearm for pretty much all branches of U.S. Service in WWII (and the only one CMBN models) was the Colt M1911A1. We won't see the 9mm Browning Hi-Power in CMBN until the Commonwealth module comes out (hopefully, any minute now...).

When you're talking about U.S. WWII forces, "killed 5 men with his Browning" sounds like you're talking about a G.I. armed with a BAR, or possibly a M1917, M1919, or even .50 M2 MG.

People just get confused in naming because M1911 was still designed by Mr. Browning, only manufactured by Colt. So I suppose you could still claim it was Browning's pistol (Samuel Colt certainly had little to do with it!) and still be mostly correct. Browning Hi-Power wasn't produced by Browning's company, either, and Browning didn't even finish the Hi-Power pistol's design himself.

[YankeeDog]

People just get confused in naming because M1911 was still designed by Mr. Browning, only manufactured by Colt. So I suppose you could still claim it was Browning's pistol (Samuel Colt certainly had little to do with it!) and still be mostly correct. Browning Hi-Power wasn't produced by Browning's company, either, and Browning didn't even finish the Hi-Power pistol's design himself.

Yes, and the Panther Ausf. D is chronologically the first model, followed by the Ausf. A, and then the G. Welcome to the wonderful world of WWII weapons nomenclature. Go figure.

But I've never heard anyone refer to to an M1911A1 as a "Browning"; it's always a "Colt".

[YankeeDog]

And if anyone wants an example of a dismounted tank crew kicking ass and taking names, here ya go:

As 2nd Lt. Kenneth Coleman's platoon reached the outskirts of Morville, Colman's tank took a direct hit from a nearby German anti-tank gun. His tank--the lead vehicle in the column--was immobilized. Thought the five-man crew managed to evacuate safely, their tank now blocked the road, leaving the remainder of the platoon exposed... Coleman reacted quickly, leading his crew on foot in an assault against the enemy artillery and small-arms positions overlooking the road. Though under fierce fire, armed only with grease guns on what should by all accounts have been a suicide mission, this crew succeeded in routing the German teams.

From Brothers in Arms: The Epic Story of the 761st Tank Battalion, WWII's Forgotten Heroes by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Anthony Walton.

So there ya go. Apparently, there were some "Chuck Norris" crews out there. Or perhaps, more appropriately, "Carl Weathers" crews... not suggesting it was by any means common, but it did happen.

[Ranger33]

A nice story, but like you said, extraordinary. Not to mention they were all armed with grease guns instead of pistols, a pretty significant factor.

[YankeeDog]

A nice story, but like you said, extraordinary. Not to mention they were all armed with grease guns instead of pistols, a pretty significant factor.

Well, yes; this is a related topic to this debate.

From all official TOEs and accounts I have read, CMBN actually under-represents the number of SMGs and other non-pistol small arms that a Sherman tank crew would typically have available in their tank -- from what I have read, crews almost always had one SMG, and they often had more. Further, tank crews apparently frequently scrounged other small arms and carried them in or on the vehicle -- tank crews apparently particularly coveted Garands, for use when dismounted, when guarding the vehicle while resting and refitting, etc.

If course, at least when bailing from a disabled tank, the crew might not have time or presence of mind to take all their personal weapons with them. But in any event, you could make the argument that the relative rarity of SMGs among tank crews in CMBN (in the game right now, usually only one or two tanks in a platoon has a single SMG), is already a "nerf" of the crew's dismounted fighting capability, to a degree.

EDIT to add: Not that I think this "nerf" is necessarily a bad thing, mind you...

I know less about the standard equipment of German tankers, but it wouldn't surprise me if the long arms available to the typical German tank crew was somewhat more than what CMBN represents, as well.

[Childress]

And if anyone wants an example of a dismounted tank crew kicking ass and taking names, here ya go:

From Brothers in Arms: The Epic Story of the 761st Tank Battalion, WWII's Forgotten Heroes by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Anthony Walton.

.

The 761st was an independent, all black unit that served under Patton in France and Germany. And, yes, Abdul-Jabbar is THAT Abdul-Jabbar; the retired NBA star.

[sigop22]

Minor niggle: I do feel obligated to note it should be "... Kill five men with his Colt." Standard pistol sidearm for pretty much all branches of U.S. Service in WWII (and the only one CMBN models) was the Colt M1911A1. We won't see the 9mm Browning Hi-Power in CMBN until the Commonwealth module comes out (hopefully, any minute now...).

When you're talking about U.S. WWII forces, "killed 5 men with his Browning" sounds like you're talking about a G.I. armed with a BAR, or possibly a M1917, M1919, or even .50 M2 MG.

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking Browning High Power because that's what the CF uses today. The pistols are so old and magazines so beat up that accuracy is only good at throwing distance and the magazines cause frequent jams. It's better to use to wave in the air in the direction Afghan kids throwing rocks at your truck than actually trying to harm someone.

As for the scenario, the tank crews I believe are actually dismounted at the start of the scenario and sit in their trenches. But the fact that they remain so unshaken by the eighty rounds of 105mm that just fell on them plus their ability to snipe off guys with a pistol is annoying.

I know that it's possible to kill someone like this, but the number picked off by these guys make me shake my head. No way a deal breaker, but I'd rather think these pistol wielding maniacs were driven off by my STG and MG42 fire than encouraged to stand and shoot.

Not saying it's never a possibility, but meh. I'll just file this under my "Dammit" moments than my "Holy Sweet!" moments. Fact is I replayed the mission and steam rolled the whole poultry farm with 105mm rounds, making sure just to use the whole damn load than hold onto spare rounds for the next one.

Most of the time when my tanks are destroyed in the game I end up moving the crews as far away from the battle as possible. But now it seems more useful for them to hand around with so many haha

[Kanonier Reichmann]

And, yes, Abdul-Jabbar is THAT Abdul-Jabbar; the retired NBA star.

Just don't call him Roger!

Regards

KR

[acehammer]

Hello, first post ever,please have mercy .I was in the marine corps from 75 to 78, as a anti tank assualtman we carried laaws, 3.5 inch rocket launchers, m 202 ,s and were schooled on the 106 recoiless rifles all very wonderful weapons . Our standard side arm was the 45. thats what we called them never heard them called anything else. these weapons were very inaccurate beyond maybe 100ft the sights were not that good, I belie

ve we qualifed at 50ft with these pistols . I SHOT EXPERT but believe me we carried m16,s with us . the 45,s would mangle anything you hit but it was very difficult to hit anything with them. I find this very interesting as this was on my mind many times back then ,i can honestly say if I would have been in the position to either escape or

shoot at somebody with a rifle that was over 25 yds away I would have tried to disappear sleek away if at all possible.

\

[Childress]

Just don't call him Roger!

Regards

KR

Haha! Great movie! I live in Los Angeles and passed Kareem last month in a local Costco while he was pushing a shopping cart. You couldn't miss him! He seemed affable enough despite his rep as dour and unapproachable when he was a Laker.

[slysniper]

Hello, first post ever,please have mercy .I was in the marine corps from 75 to 78, as a anti tank assualtman we carried laaws, 3.5 inch rocket launchers, m 202 ,s and were schooled on the 106 recoiless rifles all very wonderful weapons . Our standard side arm was the 45. thats what we called them never heard them called anything else. these weapons were very inaccurate beyond maybe 100ft the sights were not that good, I belie

ve we qualifed at 50ft with these pistols . I SHOT EXPERT but believe me we carried m16,s with us . the 45,s would mangle anything you hit but it was very difficult to hit anything with them. I find this very interesting as this was on my mind many times back then ,i can honestly say if I would have been in the position to either escape or

shoot at somebody with a rifle that was over 25 yds away I would have tried to disappear sleek away if at all possible.

\

Welcome

And I will support your statement 100% , I served from 80-87, I also would say I would rather have anything in my hands other than a pistol in that situation. I know for a fact. even at 25 to 30 yards, missing full size human targets is very easy with a pistol even by someone that is in the practice of using them. Just look at police force studies. If they are not under 10 yards, in real situations when they have used their pistols. Missing is all way too common. Actually most of the time they are used under 5 yards, now that is a shot in a stressful situation where you still will likely hit someone with a pistol.

[Ranger33]

That's a great point about police. Their primary weapon, that they practice with constantly, is a pistol, but it isn't unusual to see a report where (as a group of 3-5 officers) they fired 70 shots at someone and only hit 1-2 times.

[Sergei]

I haven't really seen many occasions of crews (or other soldiers who have pistols) fighting effectively with their pistols. When I see crews kill someone, it's usually with a submachine gun. One memorable exception is one time when my tank hunter team had ambushed an armoured car with their Panzerfaust at very close range and then started running away, the crew got out and started shooting the tank hunters in the back.

What bothers me the most is that the soldiers don't fight with pistols the right way:

[JonS]

That's a great point about police. Their primary weapon, that they practice with constantly, is a pistol, but it isn't unusual to see a report where (as a group of 3-5 officers) they fired 70 shots at someone and only hit 1-2 times.

Yeah, well, they may constantly train with them (emphasis on 'may'), but it's not like they're all, or even mostly, dead eye dicks by any stretch of the imagination.

[Sergei]

CMSF 2 has to have Tasers.

[JonS]

don't crew-charge me, bro.

[Fenris]

Ha, that's a good one. Be interesting to run a test. Play the same scenrio twice. Not blind so there's no advantages on the second run. One time with regular squads. Other with the same number of dismounted tank men.

[slysniper]

Yeah, well, they may constantly train with them (emphasis on 'may'), but it's not like they're all, or even mostly, dead eye dicks by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, here in the states. They have to stay quilified. and I can gareentee you that they would be a better lot of a pool than army boys in WWII were.

I would expect they would have been lucky to have shot 3-4 clips of ammo before being sent into combat. Not what I would called trained to kill like 007 Bond with a pistol like we see in the game. (And was that not the point. The games use of pistols is a joke. ( then put them in the hands of a tank crew which seems to have better than normal moral features even when outside of a tank and you now somehow have the best close combat fighting force in the game. Back to the point, some math could be adjusted in how the game treats combat, does not need a new UI, does not need a new base game , it just needs adjustment.

Pistols is one issue, but we have tank spotting also, Mortar accuracy and a few other things.

I when they tone them down, lets give some adjustments to a few units that could use a improvement, Like sharp shooters. I wish they were as good as my tank crews with pistols

[slysniper]

Ha, that's a good one. Be interesting to run a test. Play the same scenrio twice. Not blind so there's no advantages on the second run. One time with regular squads. Other with the same number of dismounted tank men.

That would be a interesting test, some tank crews against some fire team with normal weapons ( say at about 25 yards apart and see what the results show (Supermen in my prediction)

[Lt. Smash]

This thread seems to focus on dismounted US tank crews and their uncanny success using the M1911. Do we have similar issues with dismounted German tank crews?

If the German crews don't exhibit this behavior then it may be an issue with the weapon not being modeled correctly as opposed to something wrong with dismounted crews in general ...

I have seen Germans crews perform amazing feats with their P38s. During Bloody Gully in the Panzer Marsch campaign, one of my Panthers was taken out by a bazooka from the rear, the crew leapt from the disabled tank and proceeded to waste most do the rifle squad hiding in the nearby woods without losing a man.

I don't have a ton of examples but that one stands out.

Bob