Vehicles being hit with no penetration and crew reactions

[John Kettler]

HerrTom,

 

Welcome aboard,

 

I believe you have confused complete round weight, 22.3 kg for M829A3, with penetrator weight, 10 kg. MV is 1555 m/sec

 

antaress73,

 

I just got back from dinner, and am most grateful I didn't encounter the meat sauce anecdote while eating dinner at my desk, the usual routine!

 

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

Thanks for clarifying that rather grisly  matter. I had no data on how the Halon system fared on vs DU, since it wasn't the design threat to begin with. The only live fire test footage I ever saw was vs static detonated RPG projectile. 

 

IICptMillerII,

 

Thanks for the explanation. The shift away from monobloc armor seems to have made a considerable change in what is detectable by tank crews in terms of being hit. For example, if you look at Gazala, Grants hit by 88s rang like bells and the metallic clangor was clearly audible over the roar of battle. With modern tanks of the types we're discussing, not only do you have significant acoustic decoupling in the armor, but also crews with considerable hearing protection.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[JonS]

Give me a better value and i will do the calculation again later. ... I will do the calculation again with realistic numbers later.

M1A2 weighs about 62,000kg

penetrator from an M829A3 round weighs about 10kg

MV of an M829A3 penetrator is about 1,555m/s

(all figures from wiki)

 

From that:

* the post-impact velocity of the tank+penetrator after an inelastic collision is 0.252m/s,

* about 12MJ (aka 12,000kJ) of energy are dumped into the M1 during the collision, which is equivalent to about 3kg of TNT.

 

CptMiller:

Bringing this back to the original question asked in this thread, none of this would be enough to stun a crew into combat ineffectiveness. The only way the crew would be made combat ineffective is if it was penetrated.

No, but there is room for a fairly wide continuum of effects between 'no effect at all' and 'permanent combat ineffectiveness'. I'd be in favour of temporary but significant degradation of crew effectiveness following non-penetrating (or HE) hits on tanks, with effects - in terms of both duration and impact on crew effectiveness - scaled to the amount of energy being dumped into the target. The 'stunned' 'panic', etc morale states are already in the game, and I'd like to see them used more often for vehicle crews.

Edited April 11, 2015 by JonS

[IICptMillerII]

 

No, but there is room for a fairly wide continuum of effects between 'no effect at all' and 'permanent combat ineffectiveness'. I'd be in favour of temporary but significant degradation of crew effectiveness following non-penetrating (or HE) hits on tanks, with effects - in terms of both duration and impact on crew effectiveness - scaled to the amount of energy being dumped into the target. The 'stunned' 'panic', etc morale states are already in the game, and I'd like to see them used more often for vehicle crews.

 

The time a crew would be stunned would be seconds, very quick, if they were at all stunned. It wouldn't impede their ability to engage targets and defend themselves. No tank is going to just sit out in the open and allow itself to get killed because the crew is "frozen with fear/stunned into immobilization" 

Either the crew is going to engage the enemy, or it is going to reverse and pop smoke to avoid taking more fire. CMBS already does both of these things, so I fail to see what the issue is here. If you are trying to make it so that Abrams crews are stunned to the point where they do not function for a few moments (do not engage the enemy or move or pop smoke) making the tank a sitting duck, then you are wrong. This does not happen. If you want this kind of "effect" play Wargame, that adds a game mechanic where tanks can be "suppressed" for gamey reasons. Sounds like what you are looking for. 

[Thewood1]

Didn't you used to get suppression in CM1 in AFVs.

[JonS]

The time a crew would be stunned would be seconds, very quick, if they were at all stunned.

Abrams crews ... stunned to the point where they do not function for a few moments ... does not happen

You know this ... how? And even if we assume that Abrams crews are somehow magically immune to transient fear and confusion, should we extend that state of bliss to all armoured crews? Including the Russian ones?

 

It wouldn't impede their ability to engage targets and defend themselves.

Why not? For example: the gunner has his eye in the telescope (or whatever) when the incoming round impacts and smashes his face/eye into something hard. He's going to take some time to recompose himself, re-acquire the target, re-lay, and complete his drills. For another example: the incoming round fills the interior with stirred up dirt and dust and loose objects rattling around, limiting vision and confusing everyone inside. They're going to take some time to compose themselves, wait for the dust to settle a bit, and carry on with their drills.

 

No tank is going to just sit out in the open and allow itself to get killed because the crew is "frozen with fear/stunned into immobilization"

To state what should be obvious; tanks aren't animate objects.

 

Inanimate vehicles will only do what the crew prompts them to do. If the crew is frozen with fear or stunned, then the tank isn't going to do anything. Also, not sitting out in the open is kinda the point. Whether the tank freezes in place, or reverses out of LOS or into cover, either is fine. The net effect in either case is that the effectiveness of the tank is temporarily degraded, and the player loses some degree of control during that degradation.

Edited April 12, 2015 by JonS

[JonS]

Didn't you used to get suppression in CM1 in AFVs.

Some, I think, but it was a bit, er, hit and miss. I distinctly recall hitting a StuG square on the mantlet with a 105mm HE round from a Sherman (it was some Hurtegen scenario, I think, but I don't remember whether it was CMBO or CMAK) and thinking, 'well, that didn't knock it out but the crew should be rattled which'll allow me to ... oh. It won't allow me to do anything because that StuG's fired and KO'd my Sherman even before the smoke cleared '

Edited April 12, 2015 by JonS

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

You know this ... how? And even if we assume that Abrams crews are somehow magically immune to transient fear and confusion, should we extend that state of bliss to all armoured crews? Including the Russian ones?

 

Generally the response when things go haywire is action.  The greater problem in training is getting it drilled that sometimes no action is the preferred action.  However when exposed to murderous stimuli and the ability to respond, the inaction is rarely the action.  

 

Most of your "frozen" soldiers are ones that are under fire or exposed to things to which they have no reasonable response.  They're in hour three of a four hour bombardment.  They're under fire from a distant MG etc, etc.  Also generally the freezing is rarely standing up silhouetted ready to receive lead injection, but simply inability to leave even fairly marginal safety.

 

A "stressed" response that leads to variable results would be reasonable in my opinion, to deal with someone is a little more nervous than usual, but that can either mean SGT Snuffy is now in full on "fight" mode, or he's worried about loud noises and is distracted by them.

 

Either way, the normal response is "something" vs "I WILL NOW REMAIN STATIONARY" when under direct fire.

 

 

 

 

Why not? For example: the gunner has his eye in the telescope (or whatever) when the incoming round impacts and smashes his face/eye into something hard. He's going to take some time to recompose himself, re-acquire the target, re-lay, and complete his drills. For another example: the incoming round fills the interior with stirred up dirt and dust and loose objects rattling around, limiting vision and confusing everyone inside. They're going to take some time to compose themselves, wait for the dust to settle a bit, and carry on with their drills.

 

For a non-penetrating hit, you're not going to get those effects.  The gunner's browpad, and the fact that M1A2's GPS has a screen to allow the gunner to sit back for one, but also the inside of the tank doesn't suddenly turn into a sandstorm when struck.  Not to mention we secure all them loose objects exactly for the reason that it coming loose would be a bad event (why do you think the inside of US AFVs are filled with labels indicating where literally everything should be strapped down?  Even in something simple like a rapid traverse, a loose ammo can making its way through the turret could knock someone out.

 

It might be unpleasant, but it's a tank.  Someone designed it based upon the expeirence of decades of tankers beforehand, to include keeping it from being unable to effectively operate after getting struck by something unable to actually kill the tank.

 

A lot of the training is not so much focused on the task and its complexity, it's on making the task and the ability to accomplish it second nature.  You don't have to think about doing A-B-C, it's just a natural flow to do B after C, and when condition 1 occurs, skip to D.  It's all about speed in action, or being able to continue to act despite things being fubar.  

 

Backing up out of LOS is really the best option for a response to a non-catastrophic hit.  If someone is hitting you, and you're not engaging them you're just giving them another go at making up for the first shot whiffing.  

[IICptMillerII]

 

 

To state what should be obvious; tanks aren't animate objects.

 

Inanimate vehicles will only do what the crew prompts them to do. If the crew is frozen with fear or stunned, then the tank isn't going to do anything. Also, not sitting out in the open is kinda the point. Whether the tank freezes in place, or reverses out of LOS or into cover, either is fine. The net effect in either case is that the effectiveness of the tank is temporarily degraded, and the player loses some degree of control during that degradation.

 

Yikes. I apologize, I was assuming a basic level of intelligence there. Perhaps I need to break it down a bit more though, which has now become apparent. Yes, a tank, a vehicle made of metals and electronic components, is not a living creature. The reason a tank is able to move, fire, and generally do its job is due to a crew that sits inside of the tank. This crew is trained on how to operate the tank (an armored vehicle which is of course not alive) in all aspects of its operations, including maintenance and combat. Perhaps there was a language barrier there and you did not fully understand what I meant when I said that a tank wouldn't just sit in the open and allow itself to get killed. Hopefully now you understand that when I said tank, I said it as an all encompassing term to include the crew and their actions under fire. If there is further confusion by all means please let me know. I understand that English is not the first language of everyone on this forum.

 

Panzer has summed up nicely everything I was trying to say so I will not belabor the point any further.  

[JonS]

A "stressed" response that leads to variable results would be reasonable in my opinion

Yup. That's what I said.

 

For a non-penetrating hit, you're not going to get those effects. ... we secure all them loose objects exactly for the reason that it coming loose would be a bad event

Pens? Notepads? Maps? Binos? MRE packet and spoon? Everything is secure, all the time, in every tank? Yeah ... nah.

 

It's all about speed in action, or being able to continue to act despite things being fubar. 

And yet, people remain people, and do the weirdest things.

 

Backing up out of LOS is really the best option for a response to a non-catastrophic hit.

Yup, but it's exactly this notion that every unit should always select the best option and execute it perfectly regardless of the situation which I find somewhat implausible.

Edited April 12, 2015 by JonS

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Pens? Notepads? Maps? Binos? MRE packet and spoon? 

 

Most of what you described is all stuff that has a home.  Pens ride in the pen holder on the sleeve of the coveralls, and if they fall out, they go into the subturret where they are lost forever.  Maps usually get stuck in the TC's curtain, but the chaos wrought by a well folded piece of paper and laminate is pretty limited when they're out.  Worse for mapboards but then it's usually securely gripped.  Binos, TC's curtain again, or strapped to the TC, MREs when not in use ride outside the tank.

 

There's not much room inside a tank for anything that is not required for tanking.  This virtual hurricane of stuff you seem to think exists just isn't common.

 

 

 

And yet, people remain people, and do the weirdest things.

 

Which is why infantry should occasionally cry out that they are the "lizard king" and devour local wildlife to regain morale.  Because people do the weirdest things.

 

 

 

Yup, but it's exactly this notion that every unit should always select the best option and execute it perfectly regardless of the situation which I find somewhat implausible.

 

I was once a tanker, and young and dumb.  Backing up out of contact, or moving forward into cover is pretty much drilled into your head when taking fire.  It's like the infantry version of getting down.  An angry SFC will chuck a clipboard at you while screaming at you for getting your whole crew killed because you were an idiot and stopped out in the open at OBC (key word is "at" but it went close enough to qualify me for imminent danger pay I'm certain).  For Russians I imagine the process is much the same.

 

We don't expect infantry to stand fully erect in a field after being shot at to no effect, so panicked/assured of god's love for them that they can do nothing else.  They get down and assume protective posture.  Tanks are manned by men, and if something struck a tank enough to turn a map into apparently an effective projectile, they will seek cover. 

 

I could have sworn CMSF tanks when hit and not destroyed popped smoke and backed up.  This is almost 100% right by any estimation of what reasonable US/RU/UKR tankers should do if they got shot by something loud enough to leave an impression but no penetration.  It means tanks can be reasonably suppressed from the front.  The only caveat I would add is making it a rule that gets ignored with "fast" move commands, because that best reflects someone making the choice that we stop for no one, or allows me to tell my tank to no matter what, make it to that next turret down depression (and allows for me to use bounding overwatch without it turning into an utter mess of reversing tanks).

 

Regardless there certainly needs to be a threshold, an errant 30 MM round or two isn't going to cause a tank to do much outside of try to find the shooter and smoke it.  A healthy burst of 30 MM clipping the CROWS off however would very much lead to a driver move back moment. 

[firelock]

Hits will most certainly have an effect on crews, at least psychologically. The degree of that effect would be related to factors like what vehicle they are in, what hits them, training levels, preexisting fatigue, etc. Not sure how the game system reflects this but I assume it does. If someone thinks a 155mm shell going off 10 ft away from your APC would not effect you in any way, I beg to differ. Crew experience would be a major factor. In Black Sea, most crews, regardless of training, would have to be considered relatively inexperienced with actual combat. I agree with the post above that the normal response is often simply to seek cover. Sometimes just the distraction is enough to have a useful effect. 

 

Some of this discussion has jumped between WWII and modern combat. Big difference in an Abrams and a Sherman in terms of the effect non penetrating rounds would have. I personally feel most thin skinned vehicles like APCs would not stick around too long to find out what exactly is hitting them, but would rather seek to move and get out of the line of fire. The crew, knowing full well the lethality of modern weapons, would be affected at least in some manner, ranging from mild distraction to utter panic. Artillery in WWII was used on armor for just this reason. It has morale and other effects that go well past a simple kill. 

 

Love this game system, but one thing it does not model that well is the human element. It can tend to ignore the strong sense of self-preservation in humans. A certain percentage of soldiers have always shirked and even fail to fire their own weapons. It's a little too easy in this game to mount the Charge of the Light Brigade. I will level a building and then have a RPG gunner who was in that building pop up and and hit me from the debris. A fanatical member of Isis maybe, but a Russian conscript? Probably not. This is not a criticism of the game. Its done about as well as could be. Just could use a little tweeking in this regard. Anyone else notice the huge casualty lists that occur in a one hour game? Especially in infantry, I don't find them realistic. A unit that sees itself suffering 40% losses in 30 minutes will most likely become combat ineffective well before it can mount a final push to the objective. 

 

Real combat is often much more desultory than the game system tends to favor. Things are not decided in an hour. A lot more scouting and observation time is often needed to get men to risk their lives. A lot of scenarios tend to devolve into mad rushes for ground objectives, with little time to allow recon to get into position. The system sometimes forces a player to unrealistically disregard the human factor and just plow ahead. It models vehicle behavior pretty well, but the infantry is often pretty much forced to jog into battle or risk not getting into action at all. Of course I understand that realism had to be balanced with gameplay and enjoyability. 

[Kieme(ITA)]

 

 

Love this game system, but one thing it does not model that well is the human element. It can tend to ignore the strong sense of self-preservation in humans. A certain percentage of soldiers have always shirked and even fail to fire their own weapons. It's a little too easy in this game to mount the Charge of the Light Brigade. I will level a building and then have a RPG gunner who was in that building pop up and and hit me from the debris. A fanatical member of Isis maybe, but a Russian conscript? Probably not. This is not a criticism of the game. Its done about as well as could be. Just could use a little tweeking in this regard. Anyone else notice the huge casualty lists that occur in a one hour game? Especially in infantry, I don't find them realistic. A unit that sees itself suffering 40% losses in 30 minutes will most likely become combat ineffective well before it can mount a final push to the objective. 

 

 

The game simulates a specific action that is part of a battle, if you want to get an extreme simulation you can make a  series of 4x1 kilometers maps, link them to make a campaign, and recreate the movement of a combat formation from the mustering area to the front line, but would it be enjoyable for all players?

 

Infantry casualties tend to be high due to the very Dangerous nature of modern weapons, some of them designed to deal specifically with the infantry (such as air burst rounds), even behind cover.

At the same time the game simulates personal vest protection, and in general, the better protection modern soldiers wear.

[Kieme(ITA)]

 

 

Real combat is often much more desultory than the game system tends to favor. Things are not decided in an hour. A lot more scouting and observation time is often needed to get men to risk their lives. A lot of scenarios tend to devolve into mad rushes for ground objectives, with little time to allow recon to get into position.

 

 

If you make a 2 hours scenario, with a complement of scouts, main combat units, all arriving at different time as reinforces you get exactly this in game, not to mention campaigns, have you ever played a campaign?

Edited April 12, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Kieme(ITA)]

 The system sometimes forces a player to unrealistically disregard the human factor and just plow ahead. It models vehicle behavior pretty well, but the infantry is often pretty much forced to jog into battle or risk not getting into action at all. Of course I understand that realism had to be balanced with gameplay and enjoyability. 

 

I never had this sensation, I care for my infantry units all the time and plan their movements accordingly. "just plowing ahead" is not something that will lead to victory, ever.

Let's not forget that sustained casualties are most of the times (if not Always) one of the objectives you must achieve, that means keeping yours as low as possible.

 

We can split infantry units (the movement plan of a basic platoon of rifle infantry can have up to 8 movement/fire command paths at the same time!), so in the end it's up to how we play the game, considering that we can control even a 2-men team I belive the regards to the human factor is due to players decisions not game limitations.

 

As regarding the "jog into battle", that's why transportation is a basic and essential concept in modern warfare, there are Whole families of vehicles in game to cover this, such as APC, IFV and even tucks and jeeps...

Edited April 12, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Kieme(ITA)]

 I will level a building and then have a RPG gunner who was in that building pop up and and hit me from the debris. A fanatical member of Isis maybe, but a Russian conscript? Probably not.

 

Russian conscripts can be done in game, but you will rarely see such kind of unit... the modern russian army has some highly trained units and it's far from what it was 50 years ago... the game reflects this.

In this game you can have a crack russian RPG team, with high motivation, linked to its platoon command, company command, up to battalion command, well fitted, that will perform much much better than any ISIS fanatic... just like a trained professional russian soldier of modern russian army would do.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[agusto]

M1A2 weighs about 62,000kg

penetrator from an M829A3 round weighs about 10kg

MV of an M829A3 penetrator is about 1,555m/s

(all figures from wiki)

 

From that:

* the post-impact velocity of the tank+penetrator after an inelastic collision is 0.252m/s,

* about 12MJ (aka 12,000kJ) of energy are dumped into the M1 during the collision, which is equivalent to about 3kg of TNT.

 

Thanks. So we now know at least that the physical effects of a non-penetrating hit on the crew are neglectable. 0,252 m/s = 0,9072 km/h which is less than walking speed. If you are in a car and you hit a wall with 0,9 km/h, you probably wont even notice it. It is like hitting the car behind you when reversing into a parking space. The interesting question now is: what psychological effects does such a hit have?

[firelock]

I never had this sensation, I care for my infantry units all the time and plan their movements accordingly. "just plowing ahead" is not something that will lead to victory, ever. We can split infantry units (the movement plan of a basic platoon of rifle infantry can have up to 8 movement command paths at the same time!), so in the end it's up to how we play the game, considering that we can control even a 2-men team I belive the regards to the human factor is due to players decisions not game limitations.

 

As regarding the "jog into battle", that's why transportation is a basic and essential concept in modern warfare, there are Whole families of vehicles in game to cover this, such as APC, IFV and even tucks and jeeps...

 

I understand the transportation is available. Just not sure commanders in real life want to put their vehicles at risk as much as is required by many scenarios. If good cover is available this works great. But many times in real life, a more cautious approach on foot would be more appropriate. I guess what I am really saying is, a longer scenario time would be more realistic in many cases. But I understand this could get boring and tedious. Probably has more to do with the scenario design than the system. I would love to see an infantry command that fits somewhere between "hunt" and "quick". Or at least a hunt that does not fatigue quite so much. A few minutes "hunting" should not render a unit tired so quickly imo, but I know this has been covered elsewhere. I use the WEGO system mostly and tend to lose units who fail to react between turns. My fault I know, but it can all get a bit tedious micromanaging individual half squads. 

 

I agree about the lethality of modern warfare, but the WWII systems seem to have a similar problem with high casualties. Even victorious units often lose in an hour what a unit might be expected to lose in a month or even an entire campaign. Maybe target aquisition is too quick and too certain? This applies more to the WWII games. Modern systems have given troops a terrific ability to spot and fire on targets quickly, but they must still be identified correctly to avoid friendly fire, etc. This takes time. The fear of firing on friends by mistake cannot be accurately modeled in the game of course. The commander is omnipotent.

 

I have played all the campaigns. I find them to be the most rewarding. I love the game. Its the best available in my opinion. I am still awed sometimes at the level of detail and realism. I just think it doesn't hurt sometimes to sit back and look at the results of a typical game vs reality. In real life men are not mindless machines, and are not always as unrealistically brave as we would like to think they are, and that factor is probably the main reason we see high casualty rates in this game vs what we tend to see in reality. I'm also not sure the lethality of modern warfare is psychologically sustainable over a prolonged war. This games has showed me that. 

[firelock]

Russian conscripts can be done in game, but you will rarely see such kind of unit... the modern russian army has some highly trained units and it's far from what it was 50 years ago... the game reflects this.

In this game you can have a crack russian RPG team, with high motivation, linked to its platoon command, company command, up to battalion command, well fitted, that will perform much much better than any ISIS fanatic... just like a trained professional russian soldier of modern russian army would do.

 

Standing their ground after the two story building they are in collapses around them? Not likely. It's not about the training. It's about the physical/psychological limitations and the motivation of a modern era soldier. Ukraine 2015 is not Stalingrad 1942. Even if they were still physically effective after a building collapse, which is doubtful, not sure even the best soldier is not going to seek to live to fight another day if that is an option. Watch Youtube videos of the fighting in Ukraine and Syria and you will get a much more realistic view of combat than all the Jane's books and hardware websites could ever give you. A lot of spray and pray. A lot of noise, fear, panic, confusion.  And a lot of "discretion is the better part of valor" moments.  

 

I know those videos are usually showing poorly trained militia vs the best troops, but then not all those fighting in Ukraine would be the best troops. They may have improved, but if the Russian Army's experience in Chechnya is any indication, they are not particularly well trained nor motivated. Not sure how we would know. There are some indications from current fighting in Ukraine that not that much has changed. Bewildered columns blundering into captivity and units unaware that they were not just on maneuvers. 

 

It's just my opinion that the game system is still a little too lethal in some regards. I attribute this to the incautious nature of a keyboard warrior who doesn't have to risk his life or the lives of fellow soldiers. The modeling of the weapons systems is excellent. Cheers!

[Kieme(ITA)]

The actual crysis in ukraine has nothing to do with the game really and even recognizing that russian forces are directly participating the situation is not what would be if the russian army was committed to a full scale war.

Chechen war is older than 15 years already (even more in 2017, game setting), and it was an asymmetrical war, quite different from what the game depicts.

The old concept of "russian conscripts" is quite hard to wipe out of the mind, but the time goes on very fast and things change.

[Thewood1]

While I agree with your concept...the Russian army is still 50% "conscripts" with vestiges of some recent less disciplined times.  But I am doubtful that Russia would send those conscripts as the core of a force in Ukr.

[antaress73]

The article is on russian but:

Russia will fill all NCO postings with contract soldiers starting this year. No more conscripts in leadership roles. Also, Thé russian army will hold more than 4500 exercices of various sorts this year.

Edited April 13, 2015 by antaress73

[Childress]

Firelock, those were some impressive posts.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I would shy away from using in-game building collapses as an example. They are highly abstraced events. In reality buildings under fire don't collapse all at once as in a controlled demolition.

[firelock]

Another River, Another Town. One of the better first person accounts of WWII tank warfare, which are surprisingly rare. The author was a natural at his job, despite relatively little time in the gunner's seat. I can only suppose many who were not so good didn't live to tell their story. 

[firelock]

I would shy away from using in-game building collapses as an example. They are highly abstraced events. In reality buildings under fire don't collapse all at once as in a controlled demolition.

Understood. But I still don't think a unit starting in an undamaged building should be combat effective after that building has received enough fire to destroy it. Even 50 cal will make Swiss cheese of a wooden building quickly. It's not somewhere you would want to stick around in once detected by tanks.