Vehicle crew bailing in panic often kill surrounding enemies

[Bulletpoint]

When I close assault a tank or armoured vehicle, very often the crew come out fighting, killing several of my guys with their pistols. Is this working as it should?

I understand that when I see my guys throwing hand grenades at the enemy tank, it is an abstraction to represent brave soldiers running up to the tank and dropping grenades down the hatch, or planting a magnetic mine or a grenade bundle. If so, wouldn't a successful assault mean that the enemy crew die inside their vehicle?

If a tank is surrounded by enemy forces and the crew decide to bail out, wouldn't they try to surrender? I mean, your tank is getting assaulted with hand grenades, the tracks are gone, you can't hit the enemy because they are too close to the tank and behind it... what would your chances realistically be if you drew your pistol and charged out?

In the game at least, the chances are pretty good. I often see the bailing crew gun down 2-3 of the surrounding soldiers, then run off into the forest. It even sometimes happens after an assault with a demolition charge.

Same goes for bunker assaults.

By the way, just to clarify, I'm talking about regular VS regular quality troops. Not any elite die-hard tankers.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[IICptMillerII]

I'll bite. 

14 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I understand that when I see my guys throwing hand grenades at the enemy tank, it is an abstraction to represent brave soldiers running up to the tank and dropping grenades down the hatch, or planting a magnetic mine or a grenade bundle. If so, wouldn't a successful assault mean that the enemy crew die inside their vehicle?

As I understand it, it is simply an abstraction to represent the many actions infantry can take in close quarters with an armored vehicle to neutralize it as a threat. So as an extreme example, it could mean that infantry are able to spike the gun (lets say they put a grenade in the tube and break the muzzle off) and then blind the tank by taking out the vision ports. The tank is now a mission kill, but the tankers inside have been unharmed. They may decide to hop out guns blazing instead of waiting for the enemy infantry to open em up and kill them. So, just because you see a bunch of grenades explode on the tank, and then the tank is listed as 'Destroyed' does not mean the crew suffered any ill effects.

Remember, there are many ways to knock out a vehicle. Knock off the tracks, damage/destroy optics and weapons, drop a building on it, mine it, etc., etc. But the only way to harm/kill the crew is to penetrate the vehicle. Detonating a hand held satchel against the tank will probably cause some damage to the tracks and external systems, but the amount of explosives you would need to buckle the armor in and kill the crew would be a lot. Plus, you would need some form of shaped charge to direct the blast into the armor, otherwise most of the energy propagates away from the hard surface and into the near resistant-less air.  

17 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

If a tank is surrounded by enemy forces and the crew decide to bail out, wouldn't they try to surrender? I mean, your tank is getting assaulted with hand grenades, the tracks are gone, you can't hit the enemy because they are too close to the tank and behind it... what would your chances realistically be if you drew your pistol and charged out?

Yes and no. Fog of war comes into play here, among many other factors. Crewmen that bail out of disabled vehicles are almost always engaged. They are still enemy combatants after all. It is the job of the one surrendering to make it clear that they are in fact surrendering. Jumping out of a tank with drawn weapons is not making it clear. Many times it just comes down to pure luck. In the middle of a large firefight there might not be any way to signal that they wish to surrender, or they may panic and try to run. Again, fog of war here.

I think that over 95% of the time CM is simulating plausible results. There is always the chance for an odd anomaly, but its rare. 

[Bulletpoint]

6 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Crewmen that bail out of disabled vehicles are almost always engaged. They are still enemy combatants after all. It is the job of the one surrendering to make it clear that they are in fact surrendering. Jumping out of a tank with drawn weapons is not making it clear.

Obviously if they come out guns blazing (or at least not with their hands up) they are rightly considered enemies. I'm just asking if it wouldn't be more realistic if the game either had them stay put in the disabled tank, hoping nearby friendlies might rescue them, or attempt to surrender.

While it might be possible to pop open the hatch and start firing like an action hero, the odds of success in that situation should be very low, I think. Just getting your eyes adjusted to daylight would take a moment, and then you have no idea where the enemy is. But he knows exactly where you are, he likely heard or saw the hatch open, and he'd have his gun aimed at the hatches already. He is assaulting the tank after all.

[mjkerner]

I'd like to see this fixed, too.  Early on, BFC adjusted things so that the crew didn't keep charging forward trying to fulfill the original orders for the vehicle. And I can understand having them come out with guns blazing, but they too often take out too many enemies.  They should get hit/die a lot easier than they seem to. Same for bunker occupants.  I mean, there's only one entrance, and in RL you know everyone around the bunker is going to be aiming at that door....

Edited October 10, 2016 by mjkerner

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, mjkerner said:

Same for bunker occupants.  I mean, there's only one entrance, and in RL you know everyone around the bunker is going to be aiming at that door....

With bunkers there's the extra issue that surrounding enemies will start firing as soon as the bunker guys decide to exit, but it takes them a few seconds to actually appear outside the bunker. Which means that all the shots in the first volley fired are wasted. Then the bunker crew pops out and catches everyone reloading.

[A Canadian Cat]

This was adjusted a while back as @mjkerner said - crews come out in worse order than before and don't press the attack on their own as aggressively as before. I think @Bulletpoint has a point that surrendering could be a more common occurrence.  I cannot say the way things are no really bothers me though.  The number of times I loose two or three men to a tank crew is pretty rare now.  Usually all the tank crew are gunned down quickly or one or two slip away in the gun fight with typically zero or one casualties on the assaulting team.

One thing that can be very helpful is to have a team backing up the assaulting team.  Whenever I do that none of the tank crew get away and the majority of the time I lose no one.

[c3k]

Agreed. While I have been frustrated by semi-auto pistol wielding crewmen killing my brave infantry, mostly the crewmen die. And fast. The other times are usually because I have an unsupported, small team team near the vehicle. Tactics help. (<- not snide: the game rewards overwhelming fire superiority)

Ken

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, c3k said:

While I have been frustrated by semi-auto pistol wielding crewmen killing my brave infantry, mostly the crewmen die. And fast. The other times are usually because I have an unsupported, small team team near the vehicle. Tactics help. (<- not snide: the game rewards overwhelming fire superiority)

Isn't that a bit like saying everything is easier if you have more troops? Obviously that's true. But I'm arguing that 4 guys with rifles and SMGs covering the hatches of a tank should not get gunned down by panicked crewmembers fleeing their tank.

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, c3k said:

While I have been frustrated by semi-auto pistol wielding crewmen killing my brave infantry, mostly the crewmen die. And fast. The other times are usually because I have an unsupported, small team team near the vehicle. Tactics help. (<- not snide: the game rewards overwhelming fire superiority)

Isn't that a bit like saying everything is easier if you have more troops? Obviously that's true. But I'm arguing that 4 guys with rifles and SMGs covering the hatches of a tank should usually not get gunned down by panicked crewmembers fleeing their semi-destroyed vehicle.

The danger of assaulting a tank is that you get spotted and shot by either the tank or its infantry buddies. If there are no supporting infantry with the tank, and it's ambushed from behind inside a forest, the guys inside should be in trouble. Jumping out like a jack-in-the-box and shooting down everybody outside with your pistol is an action movie fantasy, I think. It should happen extremely rarely.

But of course as always, I respect that you or others might disagree.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[A Canadian Cat]

I think what matters is the lines of fire. If me and my team of three squad mates just close assaulted a tank we are going to be very close to the tank which means that we may not be able to even see the top hatches of of the turret and anyone that drops down on the other side of the tank we will be totally unaware of.  CM is very good about "it does not matter if the fire fight is 10 guys vs 2 if the 10 man team only has one member that can actually see the enemy then the fire fight is really 1 vs 2". 

 

[user1000]

Too many factors. It depends if the bailing crew was in cover and your attacking men are not. You guys are also forgetting about soldiers physical and emotional states like panic, rattled etc. In normandy game If the crew bailing thinks there is only a small number of men attacking the tank why not shoot back? Plus If the crew is more experienced  then the people attacking the tank why wouldn't they shoot back while bailing out and away? Especially if they are in cover.

Edited October 19, 2016 by user1000