Morale - strange behavior

[Splinty]

17 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

Yes agreed about the Iraqis bailing out wuickly. But maybe can it be considered in this case that they might have known about the mighty penetration power of the western tanks on their own obsolete T72’s. Also they may have considered the lack of punch their 125 mm guns had on their western counterparts, as the Iraqi shells were a downgraded version of the original russian ones. And back to WW2, the germans didnt have to worry too much about uranium depleted rpunds of hellfires shot at them...

They knew because their buddies tanks were exploding around them. I'm a Desert Storm vet.

[bruno2016]

Fine and this explains why they were quick to abandon ship. But do you think the same reasoning can apply to WW2 German regular or vet crews in well armored tanks (Tiger 2, Elefant, Panther even) as during most of the war their tanks werent exploding all around them. What about the Sherman (non Jumbo ones) or TD crews when their tinder boxes got easily brewed up around them? Would have they behaved like the Iraqis for the same reasons? I havent read anything on any panick bail out because of this.

[IICptMillerII]

4 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

Fine and this explains why they were quick to abandon ship. But do you think the same reasoning can apply to WW2 German regular or vet crews in well armored tanks (Tiger 2, Elefant, Panther even) as during most of the war their tanks werent exploding all around them. What about the Sherman (non Jumbo ones) or TD crews when their tinder boxes got easily brewed up around them? Would have they behaved like the Iraqis for the same reasons? I havent read anything on any panick bail out because of this.

German tanks were not invincible, and the German tankers certainly did not think so. Further, national origin has nothing to do with it, training and experience does. Many German tank crews bailed out of their tanks prematurely because their replacements were green, untested, and poorly trained. It didn't matter if they were in a supposed "uber-tank" or not. The crews bailed regardless. 

The Sherman wasn't a death trap or a tinder box. This myth has been thoroughly put to rest many times over.

[bruno2016]

10 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

German tanks were not invincible, and the German tankers certainly did not think so. Further, national origin has nothing to do with it, training and experience does. Many German tank crews bailed out of their tanks prematurely because their replacements were green, untested, and poorly trained. It didn't matter if they were in a supposed "uber-tank" or not. The crews bailed regardless. 

Sure its not a question of nationality but training, seasoning and trust in your gear. So yes, many German tank crews bailed out like any other unexperimented ones of any other countries (example panzer brigades hastily assembled in sept. '44 with unexperienced crews, with the wrong assumption this could be compensate the quality of their tanks). But u cant deny also that when u are in a well armored AFV u have more confident in your future than not (why so many drivers have big SUV's when they can afford it rather than european size cars, especially women? no worries, not trying t open another topic here lol).

In the case of Tigers (i, II) and Elefants, most of the time the crews were the "creme de la creme" (training, leaders, combat experience), it is a fact.

One question for you, as you are a 91 vet: did Abrams A1 or Bradley crew often bail out when hit by enemy fire?

Before I bring more input to this thread, I will share the specific parameters of the cases when bailing out occurs in my battles (crew experience level, AFV type, enemy gun, hit facing etc).

[bruno2016]

21 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

The Sherman wasn't a death trap or a tinder box. This myth has been thoroughly put to rest many times over.

if u put aside the Jumbo, are you saying that Shermans and TD's could easily sustain a front shot from a Tiger or Panther with their crew confident in their asset? My father was a Sherman M4 leader in 44 and 45 in the French 2nd armored division. he told me many detailed accounts of encounters with Panthers (like in Lorraine during the battle of Dompaire for instance). When they knew Panthers were ahead of them, believe me they did not think their front armor weakness was a myth spread in forums when they faced them. they tried to out maneuver them instead and pepper them with phosphorous shells on the engine plate so it would burn out the tank inside from the air intakes, most efficient tactics apparently. Just a comment, no resentment  

[Bulletpoint]

11 minutes ago, bruno2016 said:

why so many drivers have big SUV's

They either live in the countryside, or they compensate for something.

11 minutes ago, bruno2016 said:

Before I bring more input to this thread, I will share the specific parameters of the cases when bailing out occurs in my battles (crew experience level, AFV type, enemy gun, hit facing etc).

That would be helpful, because I can't remember seeing undamaged tank crew bail unless the tank got damaged. I'm thinking maybe you are overlooking something, but let's see.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[IICptMillerII]

3 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

Sure its not a question of nationality but training, seasoning and trust in your gear. So yes, many German tank crews bailed out like any other unexperimented ones of any other countries (example panzer brigades hastily assembled in sept. '44 with unexperienced crews, with the wrong assumption this could be compensate the quality of their tanks). But u cant deny also that when u are in a well armored AFV u have more confident in your future than not (why so many drivers have big SUV's when they can afford it rather than european size cars, especially women? no worries, not trying t open another topic here lol).

I'm not arguing hypotheticals. The fact is, it is well documented that poorly trained and motivated German tank crews, who were replacements for the atrocious losses German tank crews were taking in the Normandy campaign, bailed out of their otherwise undamaged and unpenetrated tanks after being hit. It happened, its a known phenomenon. 

3 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

One question for you, as you are a 91 vet: did Abrams A1 or Bradley crew often bail out when hit by enemy fire?

I'm not a Gulf War vet, that was before my time. However, I can tell you that Abrams and Bradley crews did not bail out of their tanks when under enemy fire because the training of American crews was exceptional, especially compared to their opponents at the time. 

3 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

if u put aside the Jumbo, are you saying that Shermans and TD's could easily sustain a front shot from a Tiger or Panther with their crew confident in their asset? My father was a Sherman M4 leader in 44 and 45 in the French 2nd armored division. he told me many detailed accounts of encounters with Panthers (like in Lorraine during the battle of Dompaire for instance). When they knew Panthers were ahead of them, believe me they did not think their front armor weakness was a myth spread in forums when they faced them. they tried to out maneuver them instead and pepper them with phosphorous shells on the engine plate so it would burn out the tank inside from the air intakes, most efficient tactics apparently. Just a comment, no resentment  

Allied armor identification was abysmal during the war. Every German tank encountered was called a Tiger. Every German gun was called an 88. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. To put all of this into proper context and perspective, as well as providing exceptionally well researched sources, here is this video:

 

[bruno2016]

Interesting video definitely. Check also this link which analyses Nicolas Moran’s presentation: https://www.mathscinotes.com/2015/07/sherman-tank-myths/

One unclear or debatable statemement was about the Shermans used to kill panthers and tigers in italy but not in normandy (for the panthers part). What was the difference? And probably it could only mean on the side. 
My point was not to say shermans or TDs had paper armor, actually it was even better than box shaped Pz IVs, but to say that even the sloped 80 mm armor was overmatched against an 88 or 75/L70 round. And the crews knew that of course. So its not just anecdotal evidence to say that when facing panthers or tigers (or believed to be with Pz IVs) they tried to take them from the side and in some occasions use phosphorus shells when available. I read about similar tactics used during operation Nordwind in Alsace in 1945. 
i opened this thread because I was surprised by how quite often German crews (their status was veteran, i rechecked) of well armored crates wld bail out when hit at distances of 6-700 m with no mentioned damage (not even armor spalling) . And same as when you mentioned the excellent training of modern US crews which ruled out bail outs for nothing, u could argue that Tiger and Elefant crews were also elite, hand picked from the best combat proven crews, which was not the case for the other tanks incl. Panthers, where green crews were more than often the norm in 44/45. 

 

 

[George MC]

I’m playing a CMRT PBEM at the moment which is Tank heavy fir the Germans. Crew experience is generally regular with some veterans and an occasional green crew. 
 

I’ve had crews bail out of two tanks that have taken hits. In one case (veteran crew) no casualties. When I managed to get em on board a few turns later the gun and optics were damaged and unusable. Other tank crew bailed after taking hit which Kia two crew members. Crew remounted some turns later. Again vehicle had system damage equating to mission kill. 
 

ive had other tanks bouncing hits (Panthers) and crews have stayed put. So I’m not seeing anything that to me is off. 
 

in my mind of a tank I’m is hit and fills the tank with smoke and chaos I’m unlikely to hang about and see what happens. Anecdotally I’ve read if crews bailing when a tank is hit thinking it’s brewing up only to find once outside it’s ok and then remounting. 
 

so in my experience in CMRT I’ve not seen anything unreasonable with experienced crews bailing out of tanks. 
 

oh just add I’m ok with crews bailing out of tanks being panicked- that way if one of your infantry teams takes out a tank at close range the crew don’t come out shooting like a pack of Rambos...

Edited June 10, 2020 by George MC

[bruno2016]

2 minutes ago, George MC said:

I’m playing a CMRT PBEM at the moment which is Tank heavy fir the Germans. Crew experience is generally regular with some veterans and an occasional green crew. 
 

I’ve had crews bail out of two tanks that have taken hits. In one case (veteran crew) no casualties. When I managed to get em on board a few turns later the gun and optics were damaged and unusable. Other tank crew bailed after taking hit which Kia two crew members. Crew remounted some turns later. Again vehicle had system damage equating to mission kill. 
 

ive had other tanks bouncing hits (Panthers) and crews have stayed put. So I’m not seeing anything that to me is off. 
 

in my mind of a tank I’m is hit and fills the tank with smoke and chaos I’m unlikely to hang about and see what happens. Anecdotally I’ve read if crews bailing when a tank is hit thinking it’s brewing up only to find once outside it’s ok and then remounting. 
 

so in my experience in CMRT I’ve not seen anything unreasonable with experienced crews bailing out of tanks. 

Fine. I will check this point again on what damages actually occured to the tank (as when its dismounted no info is displayed) which cld explain the crew reaction. 
To support what u said, in april 45 on the front of the 9th army in the Halbe pocket, a Tiger 2 experienced waffen SS crew bailed out after being hit and having smoke inside the tank. They realized after a few minutes that actually the fire wasnt lethal to them but chaos had happened to others near their tank. They climbed back. See story attached

 

[bruno2016]

[George MC]

These are from Will Fey's book 'Armour Battles of the Waffen SS' - aye lot's of first person account in that one.

In my experience in CM crews bailing from tanks tend to have good reason (in their pixel minds) if experienced e.g. system damage; crew member(s) WIA or KIA; spalling/penetrating hit and good chance threat will put another shot into their tank; or they newbies who this is their first time having their ride hit!

As is aid bailing crews tend to have their morale state disrupted as if the tank is hit during an infantry close assault e.g. AT grenades, panzerfaust etc the crew used to come out 'hot' all guns blazing and take out their ambushers. Now the crew bails and its morale state to a certain extent precludes them coming out all guns firing or at least makes it less likely.

[Bulletpoint]

I think the misunderstanding here is that Bruno didn't see any red "penetration" message, so he assumed the tank had not been damaged, so the crew should not bail. But when the tank cannon is hit and damaged, the game only shows "Hit: Weapon" in white letters, so it's easy to assume the hit did no damage.

[bruno2016]

7 minutes ago, George MC said:

These are from Will Fey's book 'Armour Battles of the Waffen SS' - aye lot's of first person account in that one.

In my experience in CM crews bailing from tanks tend to have good reason (in their pixel minds) if experienced e.g. system damage; crew member(s) WIA or KIA; spalling/penetrating hit and good chance threat will put another shot into their tank; or they newbies who this is their first time having their ride hit!

As is aid bailing crews tend to have their morale state disrupted as if the tank is hit during an infantry close assault e.g. AT grenades, panzerfaust etc the crew used to come out 'hot' all guns blazing and take out their ambushers. Now the crew bails and its morale state to a certain extent precludes them coming out all guns firing or at least makes it less likely.

I can see we share some common sources

I agree on wht u said. In the cases i faced which prompted me, after several frustrating experiences, to open this thread, often there was no more damage to the tank than just being hit without penetration or spalling or anything like that (unless sthg else happens that the AI does not share with the player, like sparkles, or paint flakes or crew anxiety in the heat of battle). Would be probably beneficial to have more feedback from the AI in the game to avoid assumptions and prejudices...

[George MC]

1 minute ago, bruno2016 said:

I can see we share some common sources

I agree on wht u said. In the cases i faced which prompted me, after several frustrating experiences, to open this thread, often there was no more damage to the tank than just being hit without penetration or spalling or anything like that (unless sthg else happens that the AI does not share with the player, like sparkles, or paint flakes or crew anxiety in the heat of battle). Would be probably beneficial to have more feedback from the AI in the game to avoid assumptions and prejudices...

Personally I'm ok with it as is. Its a simulation so my troops doing weird stuff is for me at any rate, all part of the chaos. I'm ok with not knowing everything

I'm more vexed by halftrack crews popping up to man MGs where they guy before has been KIA and doing so in rotation until the whole crew has been popped! But that's another issue entirely...

[bruno2016]

5 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think the misunderstanding here is that Bruno didn't see any red "penetration" message, so he assumed the tank had not been damaged, so the crew should not bail. But when the tank cannon is hit and damaged, the game only shows "Hit: Weapon" in white letters, so it's easy to assume the hit did no damage.

Thanks for pointing thos out. Like i just replied to Georges, i think par of this misunderstanding comes from maybe incomplete feedback from the AI on wht really happens with a hit.

this is the same with another thread i joined a few years ago about the very strange vulnerability of halftrack or SPW passengers to small arm fires at level angle. I waz replied many times rifle caliber cld penetrate the 8 mm or so armor and therefore wound people ibside. Whereas there was no AI msg about penetration or spalling

[bruno2016]

2 minutes ago, George MC said:

Personally I'm ok with it as is. Its a simulation so my troops doing weird stuff is for me at any rate, all part of the chaos. I'm ok with not knowing everything

I'm more vexed by halftrack crews popping up to man MGs where they guy before has been KIA and doing so in rotation until the whole crew has been popped! But that's another issue entirely...

Hehe yes, we can cope with that. Probably as a vet of ASL for decades i am too much influenced by the omniscience of the player materialuzed by endless dice roll to know if the guy got a flu and then does he sneeze or not lol.

HT: dont bring that frustration here plz. I am so annoyed myself. I didnt experience this death rotating craziness u describe but the vulnerability of passengers to small arm fire (their heads arent assumed to be exposed in BU position). A whole debate with a thread opened by others already

[George MC]

8 minutes ago, bruno2016 said:

Hehe yes, we can cope with that. Probably as a vet of ASL for decades i am too much influenced by the omniscience of the player materialuzed by endless dice roll to know if the guy got a flu and then does he sneeze or not lol.

HT: dont bring that frustration here plz. I am so annoyed myself. I didnt experience this death rotating craziness u describe but the vulnerability of passengers to small arm fire (their heads arent assumed to be exposed in BU position). A whole debate with a thread opened by others already

I suffer in silence. I have a work around which is HTs stay buttoned down with cover arc. Just recently in my current PBEM forgot to do that with one vehicle... Ach weel, daft sodjers gettin themsels kilt!

[bruno2016]

Just now, George MC said:

I suffer in silence. I have a work around which is HTs stay buttoned down with cover arc. Just recently in my current PBEM forgot to do that with one vehicle... Ach weel, daft sodjers gettin themsels kilt!

It works really. I thought of that but cldnt see really how this gave protection. At which distance do u put them from threat?

[bruno2016]

Sorry it was all meant to be questions

[bruno2016]

4 minutes ago, George MC said:

I suffer in silence. I have a work around which is HTs stay buttoned down with cover arc. Just recently in my current PBEM forgot to do that with one vehicle... Ach weel, daft sodjers gettin themsels kilt!

Btw Georges, u mention pbem. Am looking for an opponent in any of the CM games. Wld u be interested?

[George MC]

6 minutes ago, bruno2016 said:

It works really. I thought of that but cldnt see really how this gave protection. At which distance do u put them from threat?

I tend to keep em in cover as long as I can. As and when they move they do so 'fats' and to next level of cover. If hostile fire a possibility then I make sure the hostile area is under suppressing fire or smoke covered. I've found if using German SPW to engage then 251/9s and 251/17 are reasonably bullet resistance i.e. crew less likely to be KOd. MG armed SPW need to stay back around 500m, if going closer then shield pointing at threat BUT likely you'll end up loosing gunners.

As an aside I have the KG Muhlenkamp book and a lot of the time all the crew in SPW appear to be keeping their heads well down. You don't see many MG gunners manning the weapon. When you do seem them manning the weapon then judging by other crews' position less likely threat. @RockinHarry had a wee mod that made some difference IIRC (not wanting to derail your thread on tank bailouts) so I'll link to the thread on SPW in an edit and when I find it.

[George MC]

7 minutes ago, bruno2016 said:

Btw Georges, u mention pbem. Am looking for an opponent in any of the CM games. Wld u be interested?

Aye I would be but I've a full dacne card running at the moment with six games on-going (lockdown have a wee bit more time!). As and when I have space I'll drop you a line? Or you PM me in a few weeks? 

[bruno2016]

42 minutes ago, George MC said:

251/9s and 251/17 are reasonably bullet resistance i.e. crew less likely to be KOd. MG armed SPW need to stay back around 500m,

Interesting. The only difference i see between the 75mm or 20 mm gun shield with the fromt MG shield is the side (to some extent) or all around protection. The thickness is still 8 mm or so, at keast not more than the MG shield. 
so why, thru the front covered arc, wld MG gunners be more vulnerable? i really question the design behind the AI

[bruno2016]

It would be good that some of the CM developers or designers join these chats. Wld clarify many things we all just assume at the EOD