German Mk IIIM crew won't mount...

[Hpt. Lisse]

...a different Mk IIIM.

Playing the German campaign (I will forever be a more careful tank driver, after observing the cumulative track damage to my Pz MkIII's & IV's battle to battle).

I bail a MkIII crew out of their beaten up tank, and try to mount a different disembarked IIIM (crew still huddling out there somewhere), as it's in much better shape (wanna bring this to the next battle).

No mas. Why?

Was it deemed unrealistic, even for the crew of the same type AFV, to shift vehicles? Or is this a coding issue (happens rarely, difficult to code)?

[sburke]

It seems more of an issue they were afraid how it would be used by gamers cause we are such a bunch of..gamey... bastards.

Something along the lines of swapping around crews from different tanks to take advantage of point values etc. At least that was the last comment I recall when it came up, but you are correct, you can not swap crews.

[akd]

This is intended behavior, but much debated. I think the restriction is justified, but that handling of replacement and repair in campaigns should be more nuanced.

[Childress]

Something along the lines of swapping around crews from different tanks to take advantage of point values etc. At least that was the last comment I recall when it came up, but you are correct, you can not swap crews.

Yet that is precisely what Michael Wittmann and his crew did at Villers-Bocage.

[MikeyD]

One odd exception to that rule is the M3 HMC and T30 howitzer halftrack. You can bail the crews then reman with anyone else you want and they'll crew the gun. I just now tested it to see if it worked. The trick, though, is you need a full 5 man replacement crew, a four man split squad won't do. Apparently (just based on a 2 minute test) the gunner loads last so if you're a man short...

[Hpt. Lisse]

I don't think Sgt. Barkmann was in his own Panther the morning of "Barkmann's Corner", either.

[sburke]

I don't think anyone ever said "no this never happened". It is more of an issue what would we do with it if we had it beyond the occasional incident.

I think Steve must be an awfully gamey player and Charles is just sick of it.

[Hpt. Lisse]

Hey, that's fine if it's something that can be 'worked', points-wise... not a big deal.

I also noticed the 2.0 engine lacks 'fire'....

[Childress]

I don't think anyone ever said "no this never happened". It is more of an issue what would we do with it if we had it beyond the occasional incident.

Frankly I don't see the downside. As the de facto leader I'd appreciate the option to move our Ace crew or unhorsed platoon commander into any AFV available. Certainly tankers should be restricted to the vehicles they've trained in, e.g., the Tiger with it's special demands and unique steering system. Getting the AI to perform such calculated transfers is another story.

A bit O/T: I wish BF would consider modelling Fatigue for vehicle crews engaged in intense and prolonged action.

[Baneman]

I'm not against it per se, but I agree with Childress that crews should be restricted to "their" kind of vehicle.

Also, if ever implemented, I think the frequency of it happening could be reduced by giving a crew whose vehicle was destroyed, a permanent morale penalty.

This would also reduce the "CHARGE !" crew behaviour

[Michael Emrys]

...I think the...crew whose vehicle was destroyed [should receive] a permanent morale penalty.

This would also reduce the "CHARGE !" crew behaviour

Very good idea.

Michael

[ASL Veteran]

While historically tank crews would switch between vehicles on occasion, it typically isn't the kind of thing that is done while under fire. If the abandoned vehicle is sitting in the direct LOS of the enemy you typically aren't going to see a vehicle crew go and jump into it. Even if it's their own vehicle a crew typically won't jump back into a vehicle that they just abandoned while the enemy still has a direct LOS to it. I think the game is actually more forgiving than reality.

[John Kettler]

ASL Veteran,

Not only have I read of unit commanders going through multiple tanks in one engagement; I've read of such commanders displacing the TC and of one tank rescuing crew from another, with the rescued men jammed inside! That such practices were far from uncommon is made apparent in the draconian German order to all Panzer commanders at Kursk informing them that under no circumstances were they to stop and render aid to stricken comrades, this to maintain offensive momentum. The accounts I've read cover the Germans, the British and the Americans. General rule: If it runs, use it it. Every tank counts! Tanks went into battle still smelling of corpses, with holes in them, with system damage and what have you.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ASL Veteran]

ASL Veteran,

Not only have I read of unit commanders going through multiple tanks in one engagement; I've read of such commanders displacing the TC and of one tank rescuing crew from another, with the rescued men jammed inside! That such practices were far from uncommon is made apparent in the draconian German order to all Panzer commanders at Kursk informing them that under no circumstances were they to stop and render aid to stricken comrades, this to maintain offensive momentum. The accounts I've read cover the Germans, the British and the Americans. General rule: If it runs, use it it. Every tank counts! Tanks went into battle still smelling of corpses, with holes in them, with system damage and what have you.

Regards,

John Kettler

Ahem, rescuing crew members of a disabled tank and cramming that crew into an already manned tank is a distinctly different situation than having a crew look upon an abandoned tank, jump into it, and start driving around fighting the enemy. One would also presume that such a tank that was filled by both it's inherent crew and a rescued crew would be compromised in it's ability to function during combat. I would expect a vehicle filled with two crews to head to the rear so that the wounded men could receive aid and the extra personnel be offloaded in a safe area.

Regarding an abandoned tank on the battlefield let's run through some common sense logic here shall we? I see a tank on the battlefield that doesn't appear to be moving. Is there a crew inside? Maybe or maybe not. Unless there is smoke coming from it or obvious damage then it wouldn't necessarily be apparent that the vehicle is even abandoned. Assuming that you have determined that the vehicle is abandoned how are you going to know that all the systems are working? Does the gun fire? Is the radio working? Does the vehicle move or even have fuel? Does the engine work? So you and your comrades decide - yeah, even though the tank is under fire by Soviet HMGs and there is an AT gun nearby and we have no idea what condition the tank is in, I'm just going to jump into that bad boy, fire it up and start kicking some Soviet a$$.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't even pass the smell test. John, I have read more personal accounts than I would care to count - many of which are directly on point with what is being discussed. I've never read an account where an abandoned tank gets remanned in the middle of a firefight. Ever. Not even a single time. Have I read where a crew abandons their tank and happens across another tank on their way back to the workshop area? Yeah. The dead crewmembers were both inside the tank and on the ground nearby. They checked out the vehicle, inspected it for damage, tentatively tried to start it up and were surprised it ran - and had fuel. They drove it back to the workshop to have it looked at. No, the enemy was nowhere to be seen. Have I read where individual commanders will join an already manned tank so he can continue to command his unit? Sure, but even in those circumstances the commander waits until the opportunity presents itself so that the switch can be made safely.

[Childress]

Also, if ever implemented, I think the frequency of it happening could be reduced by giving a crew whose vehicle was destroyed, a permanent morale penalty.

This would also reduce the "CHARGE !" crew behaviour

Well, that wouldn't have helped Wittmann's cause at V-B. I believe, with others, that there might be more of 'shock' if one of the crew goes down than presently. Especially the commander. Now they may or not reverse a bit and show 'cautious' but they seem to get back in the swing of things awfully quickly.

And I've never witnessed the Bonzai crew phenomenon. But it must happen since many have reported it.

[JonS]

I don't think Sgt. Barkmann was in his own Panther the morning of "Barkmann's Corner", either.

Perhaps, but he was in that vehicle for the entirety of the battle. CM has an already implemented feature which allows scenario designers to swap crews around before a standalone battle commences. It's called "the briefing"

[JonS]

And I've never witnessed the Bonzai crew phenomenon.

Yeah, it's really tricky to get the sods to keep their feet in those tiny little pots

[JonS]

Yet that is precisely what Michael Wittmann and his crew did at Villers-Bocage.

"Villers-Bocage" was a set of 4 or 5 distinct actions, and Wittman lost his ride in several of them. He then wandered around looking for another vehicle to wreck and got stuck in again.

It is more than possible to recreate all this in CM as a series of distinct but related scenarios, each of which has a 'Wittman' character starting the battle in a Tigger.

Edit: actually, it's not at all clear that Wittman used (and lost) more than one tank at V-B. His own testimony asserts that after he lost the first Tiger to be KOd in Normandy he - Wittman - walked back to Lehr Div HQ, then drove back to II SS Pz.K. HQ, playing no further part in the battle. Still, there is nothing oion CM which will prevent you giving W as many Tigers as you want in as many battles as you want.

[Childress]

Yeah, it's really tricky to get the sods to keep their feet in those tiny little pots

OK, 'banzai'.

Should have known you'd catch that, Mr Spelling Nazi, what with your vast, immaculately tended and, I daresay, poignant collection of chokkans and moyogis. (Yes, JonS has a feminine side)

[Baneman]

(Yes, JonS has a feminine side)

Well, he is, apparently, rather close to Venus...

And Wittmann's ride was immobilised, not destroyed wasn't it ?

[JonS]

Wittmann's ride was immobilised, not destroyed wasn't it ?

Well, it was abandoned and apparently not recovered, so it came off the unit's OoB. 'Destroyed' seems a reasonable description.

I call this one Death Ride of the Panzerwaffe

[John Kettler]

ASL Veteran,

What you say is true, so maybe I misunderstood what was being said. Call it an occupational hazard these days!

There are plenty of cases on record in which a tank is hit, maybe not even damagingly, and the crew bails. I also know of preemptive abandonments of both tanks and aircraft, and not just World War II (Syrians in latter stages of Valley of Tears in the Yom Kippur War and over the Bekaa Valley in the 1980s, I believe). Indeed, Zaloga in his KV book for Osprey provides a bunch of reports of early war Russian tank crews doing exactly this without so much as minor spalling happening. On the other end of this scale you have the Stuart drilled through both sides of the turret by an 88 at point blank range (account in Interviews at www.tankbooks.com) and continuing to fight--with no one even being injured! Or how about Wolf Heckmann (WAR IN NORTH AFRICA) who took a direct hit in the ammo bins (tore open the cartridges) from a Crusader's 2pr and continued to fight his tank, despite that and electrical system damage? I recall that Heckmann also describes an incident in which his driver unexpectedly found himself confronting a partial 2pr penetration, freaked, bolted from the tank, then regrouped and came back. There is no such temporary dissociative response in the CMx2 games. If the driver bolts, he's gone for good.

http://www.usmc-mccs.org/leadersguide/deployments/combatopsstress/generalinfo.cfm

There used to be a little book for low level (individual men and weapons), refereed, tactical combat (on a sand table) in WW II which was full of statistics and had a whole section on combat reactions, reaction times, observation and much more. Want to say the author was Corn. He put all kinds of combat response stuff in one neat little package, and it's worth the read. Estimated publication date is the 1970s.

(goes off and digs online)

Eureka! It's MODERN WARFARE IN MINIATURE, by Michael Korns

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline/korns.html

Morale can be highly transitory, but there's no provision in CMx2 for recrewing either an abandoned tank or a gun (not an MG), which is still functional, in battle. I believe there should be.

The Russians used to load their antitank guns, after losing whole crews initially to enemy action, then leave one man to fight the gun, with the others nearby. If he was killed or incapacitated, then a replacement was sent in. Under the current system, if he's hit, the gun is out of the fight, and that simply wasn't true unless the gun was itself disabled or destroyed.

Don't know about you, but I find it incredibly frustrating to have a functional gun and a functional partial crew and be utterly unable to fight the gun. Same holds true for a tank. Even the U.S. put together scratch tank crews from either crew remnants or even infantry given a few hours of training (see Cooper, DEATH TRAPS), yet was running short crews by the end of the war. Men trained on a particular tank should have little trouble in figuring out rapidly whether a tank will run or won't, and a "dead" tank, whether mobile or not, is a most unpleasant surprise for the other side. Remember the capability degrade sequence? Tank, pillbox, radio. Of course, the other one is tank, world's largest and most expensive portable radio, bunker!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

JonS,

And who could forget the immortal Monty Python bonsai charge? That one nearly sent me to the hospital. Fortunately, it wasn't "The Joke That Killed."

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

About bailing out of vehicles, I recall a Brit Churchill bttn war diary account. A Churchill was moving forward at walking pace - BANG! it was hit by 'something' and the crew immediately bailed. Then they watched abashed as their undamaged tank continued trundle on without a crew. More out of shame than heroism the driver sprinted across open ground in the teeth of enemy fire, climbed in the moving tank through the open hull hatch and returned it to its owners.

Really the only logical method to swap vehicle crews would be to go by order of rank. An unhorsed company commander can commandeer a section commander's tank and a section commander can commandeer one his own section. Otherwise he's liable to be told to go sod off and bother somebody else. But can you imagine the coding difficulties getting everything lined up and working properly. For very little benefit. Really, I'd rather have them spending their time getting flamethrowers working.

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

What a fascinating anecdote! Something else many may not realize: The popular perception is that every Sherman had a transceiver (transmitter and receiver, for those who may not know the lingo), but this isn't true. Only the PL and APL had transceivers fitted. This wasn't because we wanted it this way, but that the overtaxed radio industry could only produce enough sets to equip us this way. All the other tanks in the platoon had only receivers fitted, which is why your succession model is so important. Taking over a tank from which you can't effectively command isn't a war winner.

I don't understand what the big deal is in getting flamethrowers going. I'd rather have flame weapons than none, but is the holdup the FX end, the flame modeling (terminal effects) or both. Don't fathom how we had them in CMx1 and don't in CMx2. Is this the result of their nondepiction in CMSF and a consequent need to go back, write new code and add them in? There was a great "Thunder Run" antecedent in Italy involving Flammpanzer IIIs and some very freaked out GIs on the receiving end.

Regards,

John Kettler