Macisle Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Maybe the thing to do is to allow Western infantry units to refuse to ride tanks when within range of known or suspected enemy units. When ordered to board a tank under those conditions, the infantry must pass a "mount check." If they fail (and better-trained units are *more* likely to fail this check), they refuse to board and they immediately become "shaken" because they've realized that their officers are reckless amateurs. We're talking realism, after all... Immediate tank pause and rider dismount upon their action square receiving any form of incoming fire, or having LOS to a known, spotted enemy unit, sounds like a good idea. That would help differentiate Western front/Allied riders from Eastern Front riders. It would also seem straightforward to code. Refusal to mount in the LOS of known enemy units might also be good, and seems straightforward to code. You could just use the current "no mount" icon that is used for vehicles that lack enough passenger capacity and perhaps give it a distinct color tone to show that they are refusing to mount due to enemy presence. It needs to be for known enemy units in their LOS though, lest a new gamey recon tool be created that players can use to sniff out hidden enemy positions. As for morale checks and such, I'd leave those aside and keep it simple, as I've just outlined above--both for ease of play/player understanding and ease of coding. Again, players are free to use whatever house rules they want. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper117 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Yes, I like the idea of troops immediately dismounting when coming under fire, or detection of a threat... just in case I was to bump into an advance unit of the enemy when transporting troops forward to the battle area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postfux123 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Yes, I like the idea of troops immediately dismounting when coming under fire, or detection of a threat... just in case I was to bump into an advance unit of the enemy when transporting troops forward to the battle area. That would be a great thing implemented in transport vehicles in the game now and more important than tank riders in my eyes. Some scenarios are more or less broken because AI troop that are arriving in trucks end up in an appaling motorised dance of death. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellas Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Immediate tank pause and rider dismount upon their action square receiving any form of incoming fire, or having LOS to a known, spotted enemy unit, sounds like a good idea. If the tank's crew is buttoned, then they will not hear what is going on outside. I doubt they even would notice, what is going on outside. Additionally it seems extremely dangerous to me, if a tank driver would stop, when he comes under small arms fire: How do you make sure that tanks are stopping right in front of the ATG? Just shoot on it with small arms... I don't have RT but if player places infantry on tanks and moves his tank riders into infantry fire, it seems fair to be punished. Severely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postfux123 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 If the tank's crew is buttoned, then they will not hear what is going on outside. I doubt they even would notice, what is going on outside. If the crew buttons up and dont slow down for the riders to dismount they should hope none of them survives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 If the tank's crew is buttoned, then they will not hear what is going on outside. They would hear any bullets striking the armor. That would tend to get their attention and motivate them to a heightened awareness that danger is nearby. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 They would hear any bullets striking the armor. That would tend to get their attention and motivate them to a heightened awareness that danger is nearby. Michael Small arms, not necessarily. I have read multiple accounts of Soviet tankers with riders on board unbuttoning after to discover that one or more of the riders had been hit while they were buttoned up, with the crew inside having no idea they ever came under fire. It stands to reason that in at least some of these incidents, a round or two must have hit the armor. Tanks on the move are f'n loud and I can believe a round or two pinging off the armor might be missed in all the racket from the engine, tracks, etc. Repeated and concentrated strikes as from an MG burst, probably not. But a few rifle round hits could easily be missed, I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Tanks on the move are f'n loud and I can believe a round or two pinging off the armor might be missed in all the racket from the engine, tracks, etc. Repeated and concentrated strikes as from an MG burst, probably not. But a few rifle round hits could easily be missed, I think. Yeah, I agree. MG fire or concentrated rifle fire by multiple firers was what I had in mind when I posted. I should have said so at the outset. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postfux123 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I have read multiple accounts of Soviet tankers with riders on board unbuttoning after to discover that one or more of the riders had been hit while they were buttoned up, with the crew inside having no idea they ever came under fire. Just for my understanding. They were buttoned up and the riders were mounted when the enemy opened fire and the remaining riders were still on the tank when they unbuttoned? Seems rather reckless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Ref Taming The Panzers (Delaforce) in my No. 119 earlier, I'd like to present some succulent new info indicating fairly large scale use of tank riders by CW forces during Op Bluecoat. P. 198 is very much on point. Fair Use "Day by day 3 RTR pushed on, usually with 4 KSLI infantry on the back of their tanks, through 'bocage' country, narrow roads, hedgerows, copses, a forest or two and small hamlets toward the dramatic finale of Operation 'Bluecoat". This needs to be viewed in the context of p. 196, in which General Richard O'Connor mandates the closest possible tank-infantry cooperation. From the account, 4 KSLI (the unit, not quantity of men per tank) was on the tanks practically throughout the entire 30 July-8 August 1944 period, presumably dismounting as needed to deal with various "German problems" in the path of the continuous attack. This is a far cry from some relatively safe administrative move behind the lines. I'd imagine 4 KSLI's War Diary might shed further light on the matter. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Michael Emrys, The sum total of what I've read on WW II tank warfare says you're wrong. In battle, it was common for tanks to be hit and the crew be none the wiser until after the battle ended. And I'm talking main gun hits, not MG strikes. I've read recently in Taming The Panzers of multiple instances in which a tank was disabled, but this was only found when it was time to shift positions. I've read statements from crews in which they realized they'd been hit (not perforated) by tank cannon and SPG rounds during the battle only by the scars on their armor after the shooting stopped. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChappyCanuck Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Bravo John Kettler! I also have dozens of examples where Canadian infantry companies and battalions rode to, into, and through battles on tanks, from Sicily & Italy to France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany. It was very common because CW forces lacked the transport necessary to keep up with the tanks. Easy solution: ride on the damn buggers! And they did, and did so quite frequently. Thanks for your post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 ChappyCanuck, You're most welcome, and I'd love to see what you've found, especially since I'm well past woefully ignorant on matters CW. Two fun things on Canadian martial topics. The info awash great first site is, sadly, cursed with eye test selection bars. www.canadiansoldiers.com The other is something akin to the CM groggery, but with no games involved. http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/index.php Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba883XL Posted April 8, 2020 Share Posted April 8, 2020 +1 from me , in any combat scenario, the ability to mount onto a tank is a must. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falaise Posted April 8, 2020 Share Posted April 8, 2020 La Le 27/09/2014 à 12:18, John Kettler a déclaré: Michael Emrys, La somme totale de ce que j'ai lu sur la guerre des chars de la Seconde Guerre mondiale indique que vous avez tort. Au combat, il était courant que les chars soient touchés et l'équipage ne soit plus plus sage qu'après la fin de la bataille. Et je parle de coups de canon principaux, pas de coups de MG. J'ai lu récemment dans Taming Les Panzers de plusieurs cas dans lesquels un char a été désactivé, mais cela n'a pas été trouvé que quand était le temps de changer de position. J'ai lu des déclarations d'équipages dans lesquelles ils ont été réalisés qu'ils ont été touchés (non perforés) par des canons de chars et des obus SPG pendant la bataille uniquement par les cicatrices sur leur armure après l'arrêt du tir . Cordialement, John Kettler exact as incredible as it may seem I knew a "malgré nous" Mosellan who was a radio operator in a panther of the 116th panzer I / 24 Pz.rgt he explained to me that his tank was struck by a AP in the engine they realized it when the oil pressure dropped ! At first I didn't believe it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.