Deadly Pistols

[slysniper]

Just some stats about American tankers:

The crew carried the M-1927 .45 Thompson submachine gun, later crews were issued the M-1 .45 Thompson or the M-1 .45 Grease gun, and the special model of the M-1 Garand

semi-auto, short-barreled .30-06 rifle known as the Tanker Model.

Tankers also carried the Mk I and Mk II hand gernades, known as the pineapple grenade and

smoke grenade. Every crew made sure they had plenty of ammo, food, water, fuel and oil and anything else that could be useful.

To get back to the original point.Gamewise i've had squads severely depleted or even completely taken out by these pistol bearing SOBs.If they were carrying the above,i could live with that but a couple of guys with handguns,gimme a break.Totally OP in the game,end of story.

Well, I have learned to accept the fact that in the game, they might look like pistols, but they are not pistols. I still have a imagination , so them tank crews are packing sub machine guns and such.

Which in truth, any that had been out in the field for a little while likely were.

It surely was not uncommon for them to improve their situation.

But inside the tank there was not room for such toys. But you normally read that many commanders did have at least one sub machine gun inside the tank. As for the rest, they would be tied to the outside gear. So not something available when first bailing out. but if the crew managed to get out of the tank and were able to get to it without incoming fire, they might be able to arm themselves with a few rifles and such.

[womble]

Well, I have learned to accept the fact that in the game, they might look like pistols, but they are not pistols. I still have a imagination , so them tank crews are packing sub machine guns and such.

Which in truth, any that had been out in the field for a little while likely were.

It surely was not uncommon for them to improve their situation.

But inside the tank there was not room for such toys. But you normally read that many commanders did have at least one sub machine gun insade the tank. As for the rest, they would be tied to the outside gear. So not something available when first bailing out. but if the crew managed to get out of the tank and were able to get to it without incoming fire, they might be able to arm themselves with a few rifles and such.

And yet, these magic pistols are always available to any bailing crew, immediately they exit the vehicle, and they're supplemented by SMGs that are explicitly represented. Interior-stowed weapons that weren't strapped to the exiting crewman would often be neglected in their rush to avoid a fiery death. Hanging around on the superstructure of a tank that's just been killed is a good way to share the fate of your steed.

One thing that I think might solve some of the problem is an extension of the solution that was applied to rampaging AI crews that used to just follow their AI plan's instructions regardless of whether the armour they were supposed to be inside actually surrounded them any more. It seems to me that often, crews obey the remainder of their extant movement order, once they've bailed, if there has been no cancelling of that order by morale state. If all move orders for crew (not passengers, or foot troops driving a vehicle; just units designated "crew") were cancelled upon vehicle abandonment at least the frequency of pistoleer fire dominance would be reduced.

[slysniper]

John, nice shooting. I think the keyphrase here is "trained extensively". From observing training progression over more than a decade, this level of competency takes, as noted before, about 100 rounds of structured practice per week for about a year - some progress more quickly, but many will never get there at all. I do not think that WWII tankers / artillerymen did anything near this much pistol training.

As with so many things on this forum, too much thinking down one line of thought.

Again, I will say, give me 10 guys, how many are going to be good with a pistol. In the 1940's, if he came from America, Canada, Ausralia

At least 1 in 10, likely more. because many of them had grown up using gun, are accustomed to using guns.

As someone that has served in the service , has been in normal and elite units, have trained in many weapons, have seen what typical soilders do and have seen men under stress. grew up with firearms, learned to shoot a pistol as a teenager. Not as a elite soilder.

I will say again, there is no data out their that can prove anything. There is no adverage that is going to be correct. You are all trying to box a topic into your pre-conceived opinions as to what is correct, just as i have. but it is a area that does not fit into a few simple rules of thumb.

Some points, most good shooters during the war did not learn it in training, they came with the skills. Second, the skills do not disapear , just because you are not firing every day. Plus if you like guns , want to be good with one, you find ways to practice, so I am sure any GI that wanted to be good with his 45 was finding ways to get ammo to burn once he was out in the field to be familar with the weapon.

So now you have a percentage that are good, out of that percentage, you have a percentage that can and will function under stress just fine. The question is where is some real numbers for that. then you have to have numbers for the rest of the guys that are shooting the best that they can, but likely with low skills and shaking hands. Even they will get lucky some times and get a round on target. What is that number.

What is the answer is, not sure, because it is a little bit of all of them.

I can see plenty under the right situations not able to hit someone at 5 yards without maybe shooting a full clip.

I can see someone cooly dropping soilder after soilder charging towards him and ranges of 10 -15 yards. I can see someone that has time to aim hit a exposed target at 25 meters , but likely not at a high percentage and only if it is someone with skills. But at 50 yards, now I dont know what to expext , but it should be pretty bad.

So All I have is what I have seen in life, no number chart has ever reflected that. I know that I do not agree with the game. but I also dont agree with most of the view as to what is right or wrong. So no wonder BF will leave it alone. because It is a area of such cloudiness.

[Baneman]

so I am sure any GI that wanted to be good with his 45 was finding ways to get ammo to burn once he was out in the field to be familar with the weapon.

But why would he want to "be good with his .45" if he's in a tank ?

I'd imagine that after doing all his tank-related training plus all the other arbitrary jobs his SOB sergeant has given him, he's more likely to want to write a letter home and/or get his head down than find a place ( where exactly in your tank laager would you do some practice shooting anyway ? That is, without causing an alarm - leading you to receive some lumps from your mates - or just being sworn at because "we're trying to get some sleep here, dammit !" ) for his regular shooting practice.

Sure, there may have been some guys who managed it, but they would be the exceptions and BFC games tend not to code the exceptions

... I also dont agree with most of the view as to what is right or wrong. So no wonder BF will leave it alone. because It is a area of such cloudiness.

It seems the consensus amongst us is tending towards hoping BFC can tone down the crew behaviour ( more ? ), without even touching pistols.

It would, however, be interesting if crewmen had a 50/50 chance of not having a sidearm AT ALL after bailing out.

[slysniper]

But why would he want to "be good with his .45" if he's in a tank ?

I'd imagine that after doing all his tank-related training plus all the other arbitrary jobs his SOB sergeant has given him, he's more likely to want to write a letter home and/or get his head down than find a place ( where exactly in your tank laager would you do some practice shooting anyway ? That is, without causing an alarm - leading you to receive some lumps from your mates - or just being sworn at because "we're trying to get some sleep here, dammit !" ) for his regular shooting practice..

Now this is a good view, except from what I know serving here. Give any American soilder a weapon and he is going to want to shoot it. Break it apart, learn how it functions and likely love it more than he does a woman. Now may be tea and sleep is more important there. But here, I can see that tank crew, if given a chance doing it. Not just one guy, all of them, likely with some bets and stuff going on with the practice.

It seems the consensus amongst us is tending towards hoping BFC can tone down the crew behaviour ( more ? ), without even touching pistols.

It would, however, be interesting if crewmen had a 50/50 chance of not having a sidearm AT ALL after bailing out.

Yes that is a good thought, except I would think in general, most troops would have the pistol on them at all times. now other weapons should be random, but hard to beleive they dont have the pistol on their belt.

So tweeking what they do with the pistol would be better than not giving them one to begin with.

[Dadekster88]

Cpl Steiner,

I made precisely that argument before earlier, but in a different form. Basically, I argued that the very nature of where police operate automatically constrained firing distances.for pistols. I did some further checking with the SpecWar types, and I learned 50 yard shooting is well within expected combat range for pistol firing. The standard is 2 hits, minimum, from fifty yards on a briefly appearing torso target, of 10 rounds fired. Even if we halve it, that's still 10% hits from 50 yards, rising dramatically as range drops. Bear in mind, EVERYONE in such a unit has to meet this "minimum 20%" standard! One person I spoke with, who has multiple war combat experience, considered the NYPD performance outside of the Empire State building "disgraceful," adding he wondered "whether they taught marksmanship at all any more in police departments" based on that fiasco.

So, for purposes of our discussion, I think 10% hits from 50 yards might be a reasonable upper bound for pistol performance in combat, and knowing what I now know, I would be rather reticent in drawing conclusions about military pistol combat performance based on artificially constrained police shooting reports. Granted, as the world becomes more urbanized, the average range will naturally drop for military handgun engagements. But we're not talking about now and the future, we're talking about back then. And while the average rounds per kill are indeed in the range you cite, there's an awful lot of spray and pray, cover fire, probing fire, recon by fire (Panzer bush syndrome), area fire on an unseen enemy firing from some ill defined location in there, completely distorting what ammo expenditure per kill is when you can actually see the target and engage it with aimed fire. For that, you need to look at, say, a Sgt. York, who was shooting Germans with only their heads visible, first with rifle, then M1911A!. You need to look at Private Robert Green, who dueled with a pillbox (12 men in it) which was firing an MG at him, and with a total of 1 M1 clip and and firing his .45 thereafter, suppressed the defenders enough that he was able to close assault the pillbox and grenade its occupants. In such cases, ammo expenditure is minuscule. York was under fire, yet hit and incapacitated or killed essentially one German for every shot fired! It was emphatically stressed to me that training, training and more training keeps men going when they should collapse from exhaustion and lets them keep their cool in battle. As Kipling put it "If you can keep your head, when all about you are losing theirs...then you'll be a man, my son." I'd further observe that, while I take your point about small shifts up close by the target result in large, rapid angular changes, the Army's own study, cited in this thread, showed stressed firing was virtually identical in results to ordinary range firing out to well past what we're talking about. I believe it was around 80% at 50 yards.

Regards,

John Kettler

You can take qualification numbers and standards and throw those all right out the window when it comes to a active combat shooting. Both of those NYPD guys could have been the 2012 ace gunslinger awardees for their department but I can just about guarantee if you ask them if all that shooting at 50 yards helped they'd look at you as if you'd sprouted five heads. Range shooting and combat shooting are two completely different things and trying to extropolate numbers from the range to support combat accuracy is wrong in my opinion. The range just shows what is possible for a given weapon system placed in trained hands.

I have no doubt that a well trained person can hit a 50 yard target consistently at a range with a pistol but this is a range with hearing protection in a sheltered area under perfect conditions and both shooter and target stationary. I feel I can say this as I am someone who shots 600 rounds a year and has to qualify on pistol, rifle and shotgun. I can also tell you that in the last couple of years that many law enforcement agencies are conducting much more realistic ranges dealing less with how many targets you can hit at arbitrary ranges and more with what you might face on the beat. Compared to my infantry training it is still a loooooong ways from being the same thing but at least movement while firing and so forth is being taught as part of active shooter training due to all incidents over the last couple of years. I can also tell you of all the weapon systems that I have used over the years that the single hand held sidearm weapon is the hardest to master, at least for me.

Milage well vary across the many law enforcement agencies just like anything else in life. Some agencies take their training very serious like and others out in the middle of nowhere that have hostile cattle as their biggest worry will train in a lesser fashion. Comparing spec op guys to regular cops is also disingenuous imo. SpecOps guys do nothing but train for warfare and specifically closet warfare at that. Of course their standards are going to be much higher and they also get the benefit of going into a situation knowing full well it's a shoot scenario, cops get no benefit of the SITREP prior to each random encounter. You wanna compare SpecOp to cops then comparing them to SWAT at least. Oh, and the icing on the cake? Cops get to walk around knowing that they might have to do all the above and then get monday night QB'd to death about what they did and that's even if they did everything per policy and public opinion. Let me tell you, it was much more clear cut when I was active duty.

I don't care what the Army study says either, whoever did it was smoking some serious mind blowing stuff I think. Hitting a target at 50 yards with a pistol while under serious stress is just plain crazy. As far as I am concerned that's superhuman and you would have to have ice running in your veins (or know you are in a 'simulated' situation). I say this because I train more with my weapons now than I EVER did when I was in the army and the people who state that you train what your primary MOS is more than anything else are 100% correct based on my experience. I was an 11M and while we did our rifle, grenade etc training we spent much more time on our tracks in gunnery. I have a hard time believing that in WW2 with a war raging that tankers would have been given anything more than a cursory introduction to the pistol and spent most of their time learning about their respective track. Basically here is the pistol, if you have to use this you are BLEEPED. Once in the field I bet they spent more time filling sandbags than worrying about their pistol.

[Dadekster88]

Forgot to ask about this as well.

"...artificially constrained police shooting reports."

What is artifical and/or constrained about a police shooting? I am struck just a bit speechless on that one.

[womble]

Now this is a good view, except from what I know serving here. Give any American soilder a weapon and he is going to want to shoot it. Break it apart, learn how it functions and likely love it more than he does a woman. Now may be tea and sleep is more important there. But here, I can see that tank crew, if given a chance doing it. Not just one guy, all of them, likely with some bets and stuff going on with the practice.

On what are you basing this assertion? The modern volunteer US armed forces, or the draftees of WW2? The behaviour of men on-base in peacetime/COIN or those advancing cross country within 150mm spitting distance of the enemy?

[slysniper]

On what are you basing this assertion? The modern volunteer US armed forces, or the draftees of WW2? The behaviour of men on-base in peacetime/COIN or those advancing cross country within 150mm spitting distance of the enemy?

I BASE IT ON THE FACT, THAT UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BATTLE,

OR ACTIVELY ON THE MOVE AT THE FRONT. YOU HAVE A TON OF DOWN TIME.

There is no place for being more bored than being a solder. now during WWII, I will say that they were actually more active and at the front and were there longer than what we find in general now, but even then. If you look at units, most saw little combat and had plenty of down time, while only a few units were faced with long periods of combat.

Anyway, there is plenty of time to do whatever you can get into. Now again. Tankers are the bussiest combatants I ever saw, for the reason just mentioned.they are responsible for doing maintance on the machines. So yes, I will agree that their focus would not be on their pistols, I am sure they were focused on their tank. That was the number one thing that would be keeping them alive. But I still see them learning to shoot their Pistol just from the shear fact that it was something to do during all the down time.

[acrashb]

[...]I feel I can say this as I am someone who shots 600 rounds a year

Piker I topped-out at 10K one year, but ammo doesn't buy itself and I had plateaued anyway, so I have since hugely reduced that number.

Having said that, your observations are spot-on.

[acrashb]

I BASE IT ON THE FACT, THAT UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BATTLE,

OR ACTIVELY ON THE MOVE AT THE FRONT. YOU HAVE A TON OF DOWN TIME.

Oh dear, now you're shouting.

My father-in-law spent his down time in WWII partying with the local girls - at least, that is how he told it. Definitely not doing additional training under his own power.

So now we have two data points, your observations from modern military and my relayed ones from WWII military. Can't wait for modern police studies on downtime to get involved!

[womble]

I BASE IT ON THE FACT, THAT UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BATTLE,

OR ACTIVELY ON THE MOVE AT THE FRONT.

Or undergoing basic training or technical/Tank school. You're kept pretty freakin' busy in those times.

YOU HAVE A TON OF DOWN TIME.

In peacetime. In the modern military. Where you have plenty of resources and facilities in which to practice such activities that aren't being used by the next unit that's being trained up to go into the sausage machine.

There is no place for being more bored than being a solder.

And in barracks they get the chance to shoot their pistols (without being court-martialled) when? Maybe they can field strip and reassemble the thing blindfold in 7 seconds, but they won't be sucking down the range time.

during WWII, I will say that they were actually more active and at the front and were there longer than what we find in general now, but even then. If you look at units, most saw little combat and had plenty of down time, while only a few units were faced with long periods of combat.

And they got handed how many rounds of ammo to practice with? They're not going to fire off their combat loads just for ****s and giggles, and if they did, there's an argument for tankers randomly not having any .45 ACP on them when they bail, right there. And the units that saw little combat aren't going to be combat hardened, and should be doing a big fat legger towards the rear, not going all John Rambo.

Now again. Tankers are the bussiest combatants I ever saw, for the reason just mentioned.they are responsible for doing maintance on the machines. So yes, I will agree that their focus would not be on their pistols, I am sure they were focused on their tank. That was the number one thing that would be keeping them alive. But I still see them learning to shoot their Pistol just from the shear fact that it was something to do during all the down time.

Got any evidence to back that assertion up? I'm sure and certain, myself that in a conscript army (as the US Army was in Normandy) most men would rather hunt up some hooch and chase tail than get serious shooting practice which still wouldn't be even nearly approximate to combat conditions with ammo which might be in uncertain supply.

[JonS]

Balkoski's "Beyond the Beachhead" and other books has some interesting descriptions of downtime behind the lines. Typically there'd be a day to rest and clean up, then an escalating sequence of training sessions and exercises starting from the individual and up to battalion level over a number of days, then back into the fight. And that gels with accounts I've read from other armies in NWE and other theatres. Rest was the first priority, then training. Not goofing off shooting trees with a weapon no one ever really expected to use.

(However I imagine that if someone wanted to do some shooting then ammo would be trivially easy to come by - the log system was basically a gravity fed hopper with no bottom. Stuff got dumped in at the top and poured out the bottom, with no one accounting for much of anything. Certainly not at the combat-unit level.)

Edit: oh, there's also ... what's it called? "Roll me over" by Gantter. He describes being in a Repple Depple somewhere in the western parts of the Ardennes during the height of the Battle of the Bulge. Things are going down hill, fast, so what do they do? Tactical and weapons training? Nope. Not a bit of it. For several weeks they stand around all day kicking rocks and trying to keep warm in the snow in front of blazing bonfires.

[Sixxkiller]

Cant believe you guys are even arguing about all of this. You can have all the training in the world and miss in combat, all of the time. You can also be the worst range shooter and hit more targets in combat than all of the best guys. The very next day it may reverse. No science or statistics ever gonna be able to change that.

When I started my military career, we had a SGT on a range tell us something like, "When you guys get in combat you all are gonna suck, Im just here to make sure you dont blow off anyone's head here." Truer words were never spoken.

[slysniper]

Ok, you want a pistol study that has some facts, why not go search for pistol duels. The early ones with single shooters. There, it has all the facets you want. many a non shooter involved, weapon accuracy lacking, propably about 20 yards apart if they followed the 10 pace rule. Stressful life threatening conditions. speed is important, but only if you hit, if the first guy misses, then you have plenty of time for the second guy.

I think there has actually been some studies on it already that can be obtained. Needless to say, it would be as useful as any of the other imput here.

And it goes on from there, til the wild west and the cowboy showdown. which has been studied also.

But without finding any studies, think about it, why was the distance 20 paces apart. Simple. A Markman could likely hit the target if he was able to remain calm. A scared fool hardly had a chance, thus giving a great advantage to the aristicrate that had practiced and trained in markmanship, plus made his threat pretty save if he challedged a commoner which had no skills.

[Redwolf]

Find it amazing how many people can find excuses to find excuses for a tank crew with pistols defeating fully armed infantry squads.

Statistics, people, statistics. Can it happen? Yes. Often? No.

And the tank crew is fresh out of a blown up tank. I think they won't be in John Wayne mood right now. If anything they would rattle in an amount of time outside a CM battle.

[thejetset]

Find it amazing how many people can find excuses to find excuses for a tank crew with pistols defeating fully armed infantry squads.

Statistics, people, statistics. Can it happen? Yes. Often? No.

And the tank crew is fresh out of a blown up tank. I think they won't be in John Wayne mood right now. If anything they would rattle in an amount of time outside a CM battle.

I just had two parts of a Split-Team infantry get nailed by a German FO with a pistol inside of a building.

The FO assistant had a bolt-action rifle ... but the guy that did the real damage was picking off the GI's with his pistol. Of the 7-8 casualties, I think 5 of them came from the pistol. Range was between 5 - 30 meters. ...... I had 2 x .30cals laying down area fire into the building at 500m .... And I was leap-frogging these two teams to get into the building. .... but once they got inside of that <30m range .... that pistol become extremely deadly.

..... I fear the "crack" sound of pistol more than the "rrriipp" of an MG42!!

[acrashb]

Ok, you want a pistol study that has some facts, why not go search for pistol duels.

[...]

why was the distance 20 paces apart. Simple. A Markman could likely hit the target if he was able to remain calm.

At a certain point, I suggest to my staff that they disconnect ego from position - and let the position crumble.

The 20 yard distance was chosen (not really, it just happened over time) so that the combatants, armed with single-shot flintlocks with rough bores, spherical lead bullets and rudimentary, non-adjustable sights, were likely (as judged by feel and experience) to survive. Then they stood, aiming one handed (to present a smaller target by blading-off the torso), and took their time shooting.

The point wasn't to kill your opponent (Wikipedia says about 15% mortality rate in British pistol duels) - if that's what one desired, poisoning or a club in the back the the head would have worked fine. The point was settling an affair of honour, and peripherally to therefore improve the civility of public discourse - why mouth-off at a guy in public if the result was 15% likely to be your death?

Nothing like WWII combat. At all. I don't know if you are consciously grasping at straws, but it does seem like it from here, hence my first suggestion re: positions.

Should someone be interested in duelling, I found this informative link: http://gatton.uky.edu/faculty/sandford/dueling.pdf

Crazy. So, now we all know more about centuries-past pistol duels, but nothing more about the effectiveness of a modern pistol under modern (WWII) combat conditions.

[acrashb]

Cant believe you guys are even arguing about all of this. You can have all the training in the world and miss in combat, all of the time. You can also be the worst range shooter and hit more targets in combat than all of the best guys. The very next day it may reverse.

Yep. Although the next day is, I think, going to be similar, as most people's stress reactions remain relatively constant. "You either got it or you don't", as they say.

[sburke]

Cant believe you guys are even arguing about all of this.

sssshhhhhh as long as they are in here it keeps them from harassing the local populace.

[John Kettler]

Since I'll never remember who said what, and frankly lack the concentration presently to go through it in detail, I'd like to address a couple of points raised here.

Target exposure time

It's been asserted that the 50 yard SpecWar targets are exposed to fire for from 20-30 seconds. Not so. The maximum exposure time is 10 seconds. Specifically asked about this issue.

Sgt. York

I've long known of Sgt. Yorks's MOH winning exploits, but I never knew the particulars. I think after reading those in his diary for October 8, 1918, everyone here would agree the situation for him was vastly worse than the situation we're talking about for a bailed tank crew or an FO who suddenly finds himself fighting as infantry. Here are the particulars of York's engagement, in his own words. I won't even try to describe them myself.

http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.Vignettes/The.Diary.of.Alvin.York.html

Police engagements being "artificially constrained"

This is NOT saying the engagements are not real. Far from it! What I'm arguing is that since police work occurs primarily in urban and suburban areas, this naturally reduces LOS, thus, typical engagement ranges. Contrariwise, during World War II, most of the fighting was in rural areas, thus, opening the encounter range considerably.

Paintball as combat simulation

Not only do I consider it a good way of simulating combat, what with the running, gunning, ducking, dodging, hiding, belly crawling, ground worshipping under fire, and moments of stark terror and shocked, all but paralyzing surprise, but so do the

U.S. Army

And the Canadian Armed Forces

I never knew it was an extreme sport, being something that my friends and I got into in the early days and ran with.

That was tame, though, compared to an SF battle we fought once, using water guns, in a dimly lit wing of a university building, simulating a spaceship that was falling apart. We were being hunted, were in the near dark, as shudders reverberated through the building from from time to time and lights flickered (the ship's falling apart), and were trying desperately to get to the elevators, representing escape boats, without being caught or killed. My heart was going like a jackhammer as I hid under a desk and the room was swept by a whole team from the opposition. Fortunately, they weren't thorough, and I didn't so much as exhale, let alone twitch, while the team was in there hunting for us.

Regards,

John Kettler

[LongLeftFlank]

That (changing experience based on current habitat) would be an overly complex solution to what is - really - a fairly simple and minor problem.

Ah, dear old JonS, many time winner of the "JasonC Airily Dismissive Response" award.

Well then here's a "simple" solution: give them a Severe level of ammo, regardless of what the TOE shows; pretend they didn't wear their ammo pouches (they snag) and they were left in the burning tank, so all they get is the clip in the pistol. Voila, no more Wyatt Earp rampages, unless they find an intact vehicle to scrounge from.

[Michael Emrys]

I suppose one must take his thrills where one can find them. Speaking for myself, I agree completely with Tyrion when asked how he wanted to die, and will leave it at that. (Those who are familiar with his reply will know what I mean.)

Michael

[Dadekster88]

sssshhhhhh as long as they are in here it keeps them from harassing the local populace.

If you mean the other 'serious' level threads floating around this site I applaud you sir for both combining a witty sarcasm laced with so much biting backhanded humor that I subsequently laughed out loud and then smacked myself in the mouth as punishment. Or just watch the damn clip

[JonS]

I wasn't being dismissive. The problem is that pistols are too effective. Not the crews. The pistols. Farting about with the crews is fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

Well then here's a "simple" solution: give them a Severe level of ammo, regardless of what the TOE shows; pretend they didn't wear their ammo pouches (they snag) and they were left in the burning tank, so all they get is the clip in the pistol. Voila, no more Wyatt Earp rampages, unless they find an intact vehicle to scrounge from.

No, that's a complex solution again - adjusting ammo level based on current habitat. It's also fixing the non-problem.

FWIW, I don't think this a major problem. Usually any crews that escape from a destroyed tank are pretty useless, at least for the first couple of minutes. Yes: occasionally, there are exceptions. I didn't say there was *no* problem, remember? In most cases, pistol armed crews can be gunned down with little problem. If you regularly find your defences breached by unhorsed crews, well, you have bigger problems than just the crews.

As an aside; I usually move my own crews back to a safe map edge somewhere as soon as practical, and generally keep them out of the way, which makes them even less of a problem for my opponent.