Vehicles being hit with no penetration and crew reactions

[Kieme(ITA)]

Hello everybody.

 

I'd like to start a discussion about a specific situation within the game.

 

Whenever a vehicle, such as a tank, is hit and such hit does not penetrate, the crew inside has no apparent reaction (in terms of suppression / condition). Now, what I'd like to ask is this: do you think that the crew inside the vehicle should be somehow affected by the fact they were hit, despite the non-penetration? I am referring to morale / suppression.

 

 

As an example: this M1 was hit by a Tunguska during several turns, and it had all its sub systems severely damaged. The crew (veteran) was never affected in any way by suppression or condition change (nervous/rattles/etc.).

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117778-unofficial-screenshots-videos-thread/?p=1600637

 

 

A few potential examples:

 

-IFV being shelled by HMGs, no penetrations, several dozens if not hundreds of hits. Should the crew show any morale/suppression reaction? In my opinion, no.

-MBT being hit by a single non penetrating shot, crew reaction? No.

 

-MBT being hit by several shots, non penetrating,in rapid succession, crew reaction? There should be some.

-MBT being hit by a single shot, causing a sub-system damage (any), crew reaction? There should be some.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[agusto]

A few potential examples:

 

-IFV being shelled by HMGs, no penetrations, several dozens if not hundreds of hits. Should the crew show any morale/suppression reaction? In my opinion, no.

-MBT being hit by a single non penetrating shot, crew reaction? No.

 

-MBT being hit by several shots, non penetrating,in rapid succession, crew reaction? There should be some.

-MBT being hit by a single shot, causing a sub-system damage (any), crew reaction? There should be some.

 

Why? What are the effects of a non-penetrating hit on the crew of an AFV and what causes them?

[Kieme(ITA)]

I don't know, that's why I am asking.

 

What striked me was seeing my Abrams losing all its subsystems, one by one or in groups, rapidly, being constantly shelled by a rain of 30mm rounds without any knowledge of the shooter and the crew never showed a reaction. I belive there should have been some, even if they felt very secure inside the tank and even if it's a hardened veteran.

Now, I understand that abandoning the vehicle would be stupid, as well as panicking (and the two things are related in CM games), but at least a strong suppression? Or a change in the crew status (like -> nervous? if not ->shaken?).

Edited April 9, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[agusto]

IMO you have to differ between psychological effects ('OMG someone is shooting at us!') and physical effects (crews beeing knocked out of their seats, etc). I think (or rather: i guess) that the latter only marginally affects the crew in case of a non-penetrating hit. A tank that weigths 70 tons probably wont shake too much if it is hit by a several hundered kilogram projectile, even if it travels at supersonic speeds.

[IICptMillerII]

There should be no effect to the crew if the armor is not penetrated. This is realistic. There are a ton of case studies and examples I would urge you to look into. I will tell you the biggest one is WWII. During WWII it was learned how ineffective artillery fire was against tanks. This does not include weapons systems that can be considered artillery, such as direct fire from an anti-tank gun, rather it means indirect fire from artillery such as the 105mm and 155mm. These are completely ineffective against tanks. There is the possibility for a lucky hit to land directly on the top of a tank and destroy it by penetrating the turret armor on the top and detonating inside, but this is rare and at the very least not worth the amount of shells. The only real 'threat' artillery causes to tanks and other armored vehicles  is the potential to immobilize them by throwing/damaging a track/wheel, and to a lesser degree damaging  external sub systems. 

 

Again, there should be no effect to the crew if armor is not penetrated. It has been proven over and over in real life that glancing hits to tanks (regardless of the size of the shell) and even very large artillery rounds landing close to the tank do not affect the crew in any serious way as to hamper their combat effectiveness. Tanks cannot be suppressed. Tanks are not infantrymen lying out in the open exposed. Tanks are either penetrated or unaffected. 

[womble]

I would certainly expect the TacAI to at least start getting squirrelly with the tank, if its external systems are being stripped off by whatever can bear on their current location. Low motivation crews might feel they'd better back up. Better quality crews would have the ability to recognise that staying put was the better option, in terms of battlefield dominance (even if their first shot performance is degraded).

[agusto]

I would certainly expect the TacAI to at least start getting squirrelly with the tank, if its external systems are being stripped off by whatever can bear on their current location. Low motivation crews might feel they'd better back up. Better quality crews would have the ability to recognise that staying put was the better option, in terms of battlefield dominance (even if their first shot performance is degraded).

 

I remember reading a report were a Jagdtiger came under fire from US tanks. The Jagdtigers frontal armor would have protected the crew from anything the americans could have thrown at it, but the inexperienced crew wanted to retreat, turned around (!) and exposed the weak rear armor which effectively turned out to be a death sentence.

[Stagler]

Subsystem loss on IFVs causes the vehicle to go into retreat sometimes, It happened to a BTR-4 of mine in my current pbem game. Its turret was exposed, took fire from an RPG-7 which hit and knocked out the weapon and optics, then it popped smoke and backed up.

[womble]

I remember reading a report were a Jagdtiger came under fire from US tanks. The Jagdtigers frontal armor would have protected the crew from anything the americans could have thrown at it, but the inexperienced crew wanted to retreat, turned around (!) and exposed the weak rear armor which effectively turned out to be a death sentence.

Is that a real-history report, or a report of in-game behaviour...? I have a tickle in my brain that it (or something like it) was presented here as an example of a weakness in the TacAI (i.e. the reporter was contending that it should have just reversed out of danger, not turned).

[womble]

I would hope and expect that the behaviour of vehicles in-game will vary according to the soft factors involved, and current states of the vehicles...

[agusto]

Is that a real-history report, or a report of in-game behaviour...? I have a tickle in my brain that it (or something like it) was presented here as an example of a weakness in the TacAI (i.e. the reporter was contending that it should have just reversed out of danger, not turned).

 

Actually this is a real history report:

 

"Near Unna, one Jagdtiger climbed a hill to attack five American tanks 600 meters away and below; two withdrew and the other three opened fire. The Jagdtiger took several hits, but American projectiles could not penetrate the 250 mm (9.8 in) frontal armor. However, the inexperienced German commander lost his nerve and turned around instead of backing down, exposed the thinner side armor, which was eventually penetrated and all six crew members were lost. Carius wrote that it was useless when crews were not trained or experienced enough to have the thick frontal armor facing the enemy at all times."

 

- Wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdtiger#Combat_history

 

And Wikipedia quotes Carius (2003), p. 221, a page of the book that is luckily available for free at google books:

 

http://books.google.at/books?id=aFPJMFZIZvMC&pg=PA216&hl=de&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Vergeltungswaffe]

It's important to use Normal or worse Motivation to get more realistic results.

 

Talking about WWII crews, there were many times that smoke caused crews to bail out assuming they were on fire, even if no serious damage had been seen/felt.

[Kieme(ITA)]

So motivation is the most important factor when it comes to crew moral reactions when under fire?

[agusto]

So motivation is the most important factor when it comes to crew moral reactions when under fire?

 

IRL or in CM?

[Kieme(ITA)]

In game.

[IICptMillerII]

I was wondering what you are going for here, realism or gameplay? I have to admit my bias here and admit that the primary reason that I play CM games is due to the extremely high level of realism and historical accuracy involved. The idea of injecting "gamey" elements into CM in an effort to "improve" "gameplay" is an idea that I whole-heartedly dislike. Is your goal here is to say that tanks need to suffer from some kind of stunning or suppression to improve the gameplay, or are you simply trying to determine what the effects are in real life and if they are being accurately modeled in CM?

 

I'm not trying to insinuate or demean you here, just clarifying. As I said in an earlier post, if you are trying to determine whether or not tank crewmen in real life become stunned or suppressed (combat ineffective not due to injury or death) then the answer is no, tank crewmen do not suffer these effects. The only way the crew itself suffers negative effects is if the armor of their vehicle is penetrated and the crew is wounded or killed, or put in direct danger of something such as an internal fire.

 

As to the historical anecdote about the JagdTiger, I do not doubt the historical accuracy of that at all, but I think there are a lot more factors at work there. The biggest one being the training level of the crew. Both American and German tank crews towards the end of the war were essentially skeleton crews. They were scrounged up from anywhere they could be found, given a crash course on the tank and their crew position, many times mere hours before being thrown into combat. That is not the way things currently are in the modern era. Even in CMBS, it is assumed that neither side has suffered attrition levels to their tank crews to simulate vastly under trained crewmen. The scenario is assuming trained crews, which even though may not be combat experienced, are more that proficient at their jobs. The American example of unbloodied but proficiently trained crews is the First Gulf War. So, while it is true that crews (specifically under trained crews, and this is true for any profession, military or not) panic and react in silly and many times fatal ways, this is not what is being simulated in CMBS.

 

Just want to clarify again that I am only trying to answer what I think you are asking and that I am in no way attempting to insult you or imply that you have less than honorable/meaningful intent with your question. Hopefully my ramblings could be of some help to you!

[agusto]

The American example of unbloodied but proficiently trained crews is the First Gulf War. So, while it is true that crews (specifically under trained crews, and this is true for any profession, military or not) panic and react in silly and many times fatal ways, this is not what is being simulated in CMBS.

 

 

The scenario editor allows you too simulate any trange of training - from 3-week-wonders (soldiers in WW2 who were thrown into combat after only 3 weeks of training were called that way) to 20 years of experience with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afgahnistan.

[IICptMillerII]

The scenario editor allows you too simulate any trange of training - from 3-week-wonders (soldiers in WW2 who were thrown into combat after only 3 weeks of training were called that way) to 20 years of experience with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afgahnistan.

 

This is true. It is possible to simulate 3 week wonders. My point however is that a 3 week wonder scenario is very unlikely considering the time frame and scope of the conflict portrayed in CMBS. For instance, you could set up a more plausible scenario for modern skeleton tank crews by expanding the scope of the conflict (all of Eastern Europe, not just Ukraine) and increasing the length of time of the conflict. A somewhat lesser scenario would be to keep the current setup of CMBS, Brigade Combat Team sized elements cut off from reinforcements who have suffered attrition and must pull infantrymen from rifle companies and place them in tanks (a la WWII)

 

Of course you can just make a battle in the editor and set the morale and motivation to low levels to force-simulate this, but I am personally wary of this. What it sounds like to me is that people want to level the playing field by forcing restrictions. Essentially, the Abrams is too superior to the T-90, so in order to make the battles more symmetrical/balanced you force a handicap on one (or both) sides. The reason I dislike this is because it is not realistic in the slightest (unless you extrapolate a scenario like the ones I described above) Life is not fair. Combat is not fair. I am sure that everyone is aware of the various sayings regarding this; "The only unfair fight is the one you lose." and "Never give your enemy a fair chance." etc. 

 

CM is at its basis a simulation of the chaos of combat on a tactical scale (tactical ranging from the team level all the way to the brigade level, possibly higher if the player so chooses) It is not meant to offer an inherently fair experience, and attempting to force fairness by adding handicaps (read, game 'balance') defeats the purpose of the simulation. 

 

To summarize, yes it is possible to simulate skeleton crews, but it is not the primary scope of the simulation, and to suggest only using skeleton crews in Abrams/all armored vehicles completely defeats the point of Combat Mission. Adapt and overcome like commanders in the field must do. Make your own advantages while negating your disadvantages. There are plenty of historical examples to take inspiration from. find your favorite underdog and emulate him/her!

[Apocal]

A somewhat lesser scenario would be to keep the current setup of CMBS, Brigade Combat Team sized elements cut off from reinforcements who have suffered attrition and must pull infantrymen from rifle companies and place them in tanks (a la WWII)

 

Considering the historical loss rate of infantrymen vs. tankers and the relative increase in protection for modern tankers, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't happen. If you had a bunch of tankers dying, it would be because their tanks were getting blown the hell up and the brigade doesn't fix those.

[antaress73]

 

 

 Essentially, the Abrams is too superior to the T-90, so in order to make the battles more symmetrical/balanced you force a handicap on one (or both) sides.

 

 

 

the T-90 or even T-72 is a far cry from being as hopeless as a T-34/76 against the panther or Tiger.. Tigers and Panthers didnt fight piece-meal but in companies and bigger formations. But In CM red thunder, you never see such a huge number of tigers or panthers facing T-34/76s  (A better comparison would be T-34/85 against a panther or tiger.) Same should go for CMBS. Equal fights are possible in very restrictive terrain but as the game interprets reality right now, avoid numerically equal fights in open terrain with long LOS if you're playing the Russians. You could say that a Smerch or Iskander strike with DICPM disabled (not necessarily destroy) half the Abrams before the fight (as the russians would try to do in RL). 

Edited April 9, 2015 by antaress73

[IICptMillerII]

Considering the historical loss rate of infantrymen vs. tankers and the relative increase in protection for modern tankers, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't happen. If you had a bunch of tankers dying, it would be because their tanks were getting blown the hell up and the brigade doesn't fix those.

 Exactly my point. The current scope of the conflict the game is representing does not really allow for a realistic scenario where this would happen on any meaningful scale. 

[antaress73]

Spetznaz srikes on barracks or assembly points ? Iskander strike on barracks... hit and run air attacks against reinforcements flown from the states to their pre-deloyed equipment storage facilities ?

 

"I need some tanks on the front !"

"but sir, the crews are delayed..."

"Screw it !"  

"I need them now !"

 "The russians are counterattacking in force ! We are in danger of encirclement ! This should not happen damnit ! Ask MP companies, staff, logistics.... f... anyone! if any of them trained in armor and get some of these rolling !" 

 

But then again, I think the current scope of the conflict is unrealistic. EIther its World War three or there is no direct military confrontation at all... They needed a resonably realistic looking scenario for the game and that's it. The Russians would not limit the conflict to Ukraine, especially if Crimea is attacked. Thats why its unlikely. The same went for Red storm RIsing.

Edited April 9, 2015 by antaress73

[Apocal]

 Exactly my point. The current scope of the conflict the game is representing does not really allow for a realistic scenario where this would happen on any meaningful scale. 

 

No, I mean you'd run out of infantry long before you run out of tankers. And if you were losing a bunch of tankers, you wouldn't have any tanks left either.

[IICptMillerII]

No, I mean you'd run out of infantry long before you run out of tankers. And if you were losing a bunch of tankers, you wouldn't have any tanks left either.

 

Pardon me, I misspoke. I am agreeing with you that any scenario that leads to taking infantry and making them into overnight tankers is unrealistic, for the reasons you have pointed out. 

 

To tie this into what I am saying, I do not want to see people trying to use an unrealistic scenario like the ones we have described as a forced handicap in order to 'level the playing field.'

[Atago]

The main AI issue I see in the original example of a Tunguska hammering an M1 is in WeGo play.  I would want the M1 crew to react and try to back out of the line of fire so as to reduce damage to optics, etc.  If playing realtime and I were controlling the US side, I'd pause and get my M1 the heck out of there asap.