Tank Commanders + CE

[SimonFox]

I notice steve is doing his nightly check up on the board so I might get a comment out of him on this one which I stuck in another thread where it got lost.

Basically I don't understand why armour can't go CE once it loses a single crew member.

On another thread Fionn said

"Remember, a tank which has lost it's TC is almost half-dead."

IMO CM falls down a little bit here by excessively penalising the tank. The TC was very vulnerable but the benefits of exposure far outweighed the risk (to the tank). One of the advantages of a 5 man crew was the ability to reshuffle the crew in the event of the most common casualty to non AT fire, that of the TC. Furthermore tank crews were trained to operate multiple positions. In such circumstances the performance of the tank would be compromised by the loss of most likely the hull MG operated by the co-driver. Whoever took over the TC position would definitely go CE if the threat level subsided so in this respect I don't think CM is being

realistic. It may seem minor but at CM's scale the effective loss of a single tank through injury to the TC can be critical. At most the commander would have his little head out and that is it (the graphics show a little too much- no way I'd be sticking half my torso out!- though I accept I'm quibbling a bit as long as the liklehood of him being hit is not reflected by that graphic). Basically the benefits of the TC having his head out are so great in terms of the effectiveness and safety of the tank that the TC had to take the risk and that includes anyone who immediately took over. This risk was ameliorated by the fact that the crew could function OK if they lost the TC.

IMO any tank which loses its commander should immediately back into cover (unless directly engaged) be out of action for a couple of turns (to simulate reorganisation) and return without its bow gun but with a new TC.

The graphics show the driver and the commander as exposed my understanding is that this was a no no in combat. Having both the driver and the commander exposed which from my reading is unrealistic unless the tank was in a parade! In reality if the main gun on most tanks had to fire it would be a very unpleasant experience for the driver if he had his head out.

[Shukov]

Hi!

A very good example for the effectiveness of killing TC to make a tank nearly worthless, is the Finnish- Russian War. Finnish Snipers well hidden killed Russian TCs and make the Russian pay a high price for their attack, because many tanks were rendered worthless this way.

BTW. I have another two "Woa"-moments in CM at the Riesenberg Scenario. First, everything seems to be quite, but then I hear the "button down"-Sound and wondered what hit me. Then I was shocked to see that the TC was killed. My tank crew also! SHOCKED! Very nice. This worrisome sniper killed my TC.

Second, I drove a tank at full speed down the road straight into the village. He bypass the lurking infantery at the entrance, bypasses the first houses, then get killed by the 88'PaK. But the kinetic energy of the killed tank let him still drive 30 - 40m in a slight right-turn till he stands still. Very impressive!

Greetings

Shukov

[SimonFox]

Well Steve if you're going to have to sit around babysitting the forum. Perhaps you can take a few moments to comment on my post -pretty please

Hey and don't think you can hide behind that impersonal BTS front when you answer, even if you do sign your post

[Fionn]

I'll field this one.. Missed it first time around.

CE ?? Don't understand that abbreviation.

At present a tank which is hit and loses a crewmember gets shocked for a little while (often dies while shocked) and then enters the fray with slower fire etc.

One thing you are forgetting Simon is that in tanks each person has a role. It would be totally uncalled for to have the bow gunner/ radio man ( a VERY important position) man the TC's position if the TC is hit since the TC is specially trained etc.

Personally I think that in combat crews just carried on as best they could. The loader wouldn't become TC and the gunner (next most senior man IIRC wouldn't go to the TC position since he's more valuable as a gunner IMO.)

I think it's pretty realistic to just have the tank carry on with the same guys in the same positions. The Bow gunner was also usually the radio man and this was a VERY important job which couldn't be left unattended.

Re: driver. yep you're right. I think it's just done graphically to make it easier to see that the tank is unbuttoned.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

Gee, wonder why you said that?

Not surprised I missed this one. I came back after a 24 hour absence and made the mistake of going into the froum twice from the "front door". All my nice little red folders went bye bye and I had to guess when to stop reading. I guessed wrong

Well, as far as the graphics go they are just graphics If we had the commander/driver way down in the hatch it would be difficult to see them from a far. However, 2 Beta builds ago we did lower them down (this was a result of a similar thread about 2 or 3 months ago, but we just got to it).

The inability for the crew to be "unbuttoned" after losing one crew member is "enforced caution". If you were in the thick of a firefight, and your TC fell back into the turret minus large pieces of his body, do you think someone else would be thrilled about being exposed the same way? *maybe*, but most likely not. And since there is no way for the system to determine that danger has "subsided", we don't make exceptions. Plus, if you are 15 minutes into a 30 minute firefight, define "subsided"? I would think it would only be after the firefight was clearly over (i.e. end of battle).

Tanks were supposed to buttoned up when there was a great risk of becomming a casualty. After all, why bother having all that armor if you are exposing yourself to fire anyways? Sure, TCs and Drivers did expose themselves to daner, but as a calculated risk. After one crew member gets zapped, we feel the risks have been proven very conclusively to be quite real.

Also remember, that a tank with a 4 man crew instead of 5 is fucntional, but 3 man crew? Big difference. So once one is lost the others would not be so prone to risk the effectiveness of the entire vehicle for a better view. Remember again, a CM battle is supposed to be a pitched one, and therefore the entire battle should be thought of as "hot" by all units on both sides.

There is a penalty for losing a crew member. The tank basically goes into shock. This simulates the need for people to shuffle around. The length of time is dependent on the experience of the vehicle and chance.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-22-99).]

[SimonFox]

Thanks for the replies. Maybe I wasn't completely clear as you haven't precisely covered what I was on about.

Fionn,

CE-crew exposed

So the driver isn't really exposed just the TC, is that right Steve?

I can't answer for all tanks but I know that for the Sherman the radio operator was the loader. I don't agree with your point about each person having their exclusive position. Sure some positions were more important than others but there had to be a TC so the reshuffle had to occur to produce one and I think Steve has indicated this in his post.

"Tank crews are interchangeable. If one of us is wounded we know who takes his place and we make the switch automatically." (Kent Tout- Tanks!)

Steve:

"There is a penalty for losing a crew member. The tank basically goes into shock. This simulates the need for people to shuffle around."

I understand the need to simulate the immediate disorganisation the loss of the TC might cause but it seems a bit of an excessive penalty if the tank just sits there in a high threat situation. It would seem more appropriate for the Tac AI to pull it into cover prior to that reorganisation period.

"Tanks were supposed to buttoned up when there was a great risk of becomming a casualty. After all, why bother having all that armor if you are exposing yourself to fire anyways? Sure, TCs and Drivers did do this, but as a calculated risk. After one crew member gets zapped, we feel the risks have been proven very conclusively to be quite real."

Ah, yes, but I think CM pretty well simulates the relative advantages of TC exposure in terms of spotting. This is even more significant in the close terrain of N. Europe where there are lots of places for those pesky little AT teams to hide. As a consequence it also shows why the risk of exposure was worth taking. I am sure that everyone here can relate a CM experience of where their (or their opponents) tank was slow to spot a threat because it was buttoned. Yes the TC was more vulnerable but most of him was protected by that armour, indeed there is plenty of examples of the TC actually getting out and having a recce round a corner or hedge. They can't have have been too risk adverse as hardly any of them wore their tankers helmets Without waffling on too much my basic point is that I don't think that it is quite as clear cut as you have made out. I agree there must be some disadvantage to losing the TC but I think it is currently excessive (and why the RoF reduction?).

1)The benefits in terms of visibility were very great from the tanks perspective.

2)In most circumstances these benefits outweigh the risk to the TC.

3)The crew were likely to be very aware of the TC vulnerability and readily trained to adapt to that circumstance.

Therefore for a well trained crew while the new TC might be a little more cautious I still think they would stick their head out to look around.

I would also add that I think the AI is a bit too prone to button up its tanks which makes it very vulnerable to sneaky tactics which exploit this feature

I'll leave my post the way it is but I have read the edited version of your own with the more expanded explanation, though I don't agree

[This message has been edited by SimonFox (edited 11-22-99).]

[SimonFox]

"subsided"

You're getting mortared, the TC is wounded by shrapnel but the barrage ends or a near miss knocks the hatch down on his head but you take out the gun firing at it. In all these circumstances plus many others (which are far from exceptional) the immediate threat which caused the TC casualty has gone or ceased and in a lot less than 15 turns.

[Freyland]

Interesting story, even if it does not solve any arguements. I was playing Chance Encounter (TY, TY,TY!) and my last STUG was trying to sneak around the forest bend to achieve the perfect hull down position where only one of the three remaining shermans could see him. I wanted to use the hunt function, but I knew to successfully spot the sherman, I would have to unbutton the TC. No sooner did the action phase start, my TC was killed. The crew became "shocked", and the tank driver continued his forward course to the end of the "hunt" path. This regrettably placed him in front of two unbuttoned shermans who had no trouble getting off the first and final two shots. Cool stuff!

------------------

For the last time, you don't need antibiotics!

[Bullethead]

Having the crew unable to unbutton after the TC buys it seems good to me. It may not be the ideal solution in every case, but I think it's quite accurate for the great majority of situations where the TC dies.

SimonFox said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You're getting mortared, the TC is wounded by shrapnel but the barrage ends or a near miss knocks the hatch down on his head but you take out the gun firing at it. In all these circumstances plus many others (which are far from exceptional) the immediate threat which caused the TC casualty has gone or ceased and in a lot less than 15 turns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but what's to stop the enemy from shooting again if somebody else pokes his head out? You already know they can bring effective fire on the TC's hatch.

Also, the other guys in the tank probably didn't see what blew the TC's head off. The loader can't see outside at all, the gunner has total tunnel vision in his sight, and the other guys aren't much better off. And with the noise from the engine, tracks, and the tank's own weapons, plus all the other shooting going on and various debris and stray rounds hitting the tank all the time, sound isn't going to help them identify the threat, either.

So they usually have no idea where the threat is or what it is. Is it a sniper in a distant building or a guy standing on the back deck with a pistol? Was the TC's throat ripped open by a mortar fragment or a deformed bullet glancing off the turret top? You've already seen what it did to the boss--are you in any hurry to see if it can do the same to you?

As for the tank being immobilized for a while, that seems reasonable to me. Tankers have to assume they're always under enemy observation due to tank size, noise, and threat/target value. So it's generally a safe bet that anything that CAN shoot at them IS shooting at them (which is why grunts usually hate tanks next to them--they draw a LOT of fire). Odds are, therefore, whatever got the TC wasn't a serious anti-armor threat--otherwise, they'd probably have a new hole in the armor. So that means they're in a relatively safe spot right now--no ATGs or tanks shooting at them. Thus, it would be better to stay put while getting sorted out again instead of blundering blindly into the killzone of a big gun.

As for the apparent contradiction of BTS saying "the crew is reshuffling" but nobody new subsequently appears in the TC's hatch, there is still a lot of "reshuffling" needed even if nobody permanently changes seats. Whether dead or wounded, the most-likely head-shot TC is going to be flopping and kicking around inside the cramped confines of the turret, spraying blood and brains all over the optics, controls, and other crewmen. The gunner and loader are going to have to secure the body (and bandage it, if still alive), pass it down below out of the way, and clean up the mess enough to be able to shoot again. The guys below in the hull will also be involved in this process. This will all be more complicated if a wounded TC is screaming or gurgling loudly on the intercomm, making coordination of these tasks very difficult.

So, a few minutes later, you have the TC's remains all squared away. Dealing with this has absorbed your total attention so you have lost track of what's going on outside. You now have even less idea how dangerous it is out there than you did before. You have the TC's blood all over you. Are you going to stick your head out? I don't think so.

-Bullethead

[Moon]

Bullethead - thanks for the ... uhm... very vivid description what happens to a TC when somebody knockes at his forehead. I think I need a cold beer now...

[SimonFox]

Bullethead,

The situation you are vividly describing, with some relish I might add, is at the extreme end of the scale of what I am talking about. The loss of the TC in CM does not necessarily mean he has had his head blown off or died. It merely means he is out of action in any number of ways though admittedly a head wound is more likely to be fatal. The circumstance you describe certainly could occur but I don't think the balance of possibilities leads to the crew behaving as you suggest. For a start most of the crew couldn't get to the TC. In all likelyhood the rest of the guys would be getting the tank to a safe spot where they could transfer the TC to the medical services. Probably the loader would be looking after the TC the rest of the crew would not be sitting on their hands waiting for someone to ping their "sitting duck" tank. I am sure that you are right that they would probably not know what hit their TC but just because what got their TC wasn't a serious armour threat doesn't mean there isn't one around. Furthermore if their TC was wounded by small arms fire then such infantry also tend to have some AT capacity so they'd be pretty stupid to just sit there.

Irrespective of how one might conceive of the crew behaving in such a circumstance my opinion is based on what I have read of first hand accounts and what I am talking about is gleaning the way things were done from such accounts rather than relying on specific anecdotes. Admittedly such accounts which detail minutae are hard to come by but there are a few around. Try:

Tank commander, Ronald Welch

A Fine Night for Tanks : The Road to Falaise, To Hell With Tanks!, Tanks! all by Ken Tout

Flame Thrower, Andrew Wilson

Tank Warfare in the Second World War - An Oral History, George Forty

He Rode Up Front for Patton, Irzyk

"I grab the commanders microphone. 'Driver, reverse! Reverse! Try straight back. Hurry! Hurry!'"

[This message has been edited by SimonFox (edited 11-23-99).]

[Los]

RE: TC casualties.

First off TCs don't go around with just their heads poking out like Kilroy, they usually are exposed most of their torsos, so any number of wounds fatal and non fatal could occur., not just head wounds. Any cursory inspection fo WW2 era (or modern) CE TCs can confirm this.

Secondly, SOldiers are not non-feeling robots. The most likely outcome of a TC being wounded is that the crew is going to stop whatever they're doing, (once they've gotten out of immediate danger) and deal with their TC. After all he's a member of their crew which has been living together for months or years. If your buddy is wounded the first priority nine times out of ten WILL BE to see to his welfare and first aid. SO If all these issues are abstarcted into no CE after a TC is hit then that's a pretty good thing, IMO.

Los

[Bullethead]

Los said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First off TCs don't go around with just their heads poking out like Kilroy, they usually are exposed most of their torsos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're talking about studying the frequency of wounds in various places, could be. But I can just say what I've seen. The fights I was in, if the TC's hatch was open at all (usually wasn't, doctrine be damned ), he was only up high enough to get his eyeballs clear of the hatch rim. I sure never saw anybody standing tall in the hatch (or anywhere else) when bullets were flying. The same instinct that makes grunts unconsciously stoop over everywhere in the battlezone whether being shot at or not also apparently affects tankers .

Read a book by a Tiger commander named Carius. He had beaucoup kills and the Knight's Cross with accessories, so I assume he knew what he was talking about. He said he exposed as little of himself as possible, especially after he got shot in the neck one time when he came out too far . In his book are some pictures of him engaging some T34s, taken by his buddy in another Tiger just behind him. You can just barely see the top of Carius' head above the hatch rim. Looks just like what I saw in the Gulf. OTOH, Carius was a very short man so maybe he couldn't have gotten much higher up even had he wanted to .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If your buddy is wounded the first priority nine times out of ten WILL BE to see to his welfare and first aid. SO If all these issues are abstarcted into no CE after a TC is hit then that's a pretty good thing, IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

-Bullethead

[Bullethead]

SimonFox said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For a start most of the crew couldn't get to the TC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then how could the crew change places?

-Bullethead

[SimonFox]

Picky, picky

Let's rephrase that: "For a start most of the crew couldn't easily get to the TC."

Consider this in the absence of the tank: five guys, one gets wounded, do the other four ignore what's going on around them and all attend to the wounded guy- I don't think so.

Los said:

"The most likely outcome of a TC being wounded is that the crew is going to stop whatever they're doing, (once they've gotten out of immediate danger) and deal with their TC."

I agree, this is precisely what I am saying. They stop what they're doing, get to relative safety, deal with their TC, get him to some medical attention, then someone takes over the TC position (which is essential) and they get back to work.

Now obviously this is hard to abstract in CM but what I don't think they do is just sit there in "shock" while they get brewed up. I agree they should be out of action for a while, I just don't think the method it is simulated now is appropriate or realistic.

Whether the new TC goes CE is a seperate issue. Sure there are plenty of factors involved in that decision including a reluctance based on what happened to the first TC. I am sure these factors could be considered by making the new TC much more likely to 'pull his head in' (my understanding is that mostly they didn't actually close up). But in your typical close european terrain the tank desperately needs that extra visibility, it is a far cry from the steppes or desert terrain. You would have to be absolutely crazy to drive around in the bocage buttoned up. Indeed I have read numerous accounts of TCs getting up and standing on the top of the turret to see over the hedges. I just don't think it is reasonable to have a complete blanket ban on the new TC putting their head out for a look. It is all a question of degrees, by all means penalise them in some way, it's just the way it is at the moment doesn't correspond to my reading (however limited that may be) and seems unecessarily harsh at the scale of CM.