Raze Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 Given the fact that so many of these discussions are about little fiddly bits and details, I guess I'll add to the fray. Is there any consideration given to button/unbutton tanks receiving fire. Tests conducted by the US Army showed, that in a buttoned up tank, A penetration of the vehicle (in one side and out the other), would create a vacuum that would kill the crew. To put a finer point on it- using sheep as crew, they were sucked out the hole that was left as the projectile exited the compartment. Needlessly graphic but you get the point . So, is this taken into consideration in the game? I hope this isn't another FATAL FLAW ------------------ Hey look, the bleeding stopped. Uh oh. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloid Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 Wow, I think we'll need a splattered-remains-of-crew graphic for that one! If not, the game is most certainly ruined, heh! I can't imagine that every through and through would do this, but certainly some ordinance would. I would assume as well, that the more lethal ordinance is modeled to kill everyone inside, though not in such splendid detail. Aloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 Can I perform empirical tests on Mk IV, Thrash and Swamp? Puleeeeeeze? ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Raze: Tests conducted by the US Army showed, that in a buttoned up tank, A penetration of the vehicle (in one side and out the other), would create a vacuum that would kill the crew <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, first, make sure of your terms. Unless I'm mistaken, a penetrating hit in CM is either a noncritical hit, a nonlethal critical hit, or a lethal critical hit. I don't think that "through and through" penetrations are modelled. If there's a proper military term for this, I don't know it. Second - Gee, wouldn't a shot that went in one side of a tank and out the other kill most everyone inside anyway? Buttoned or unbuttoned, I'd rather not be there. Third - um, yeah. Niggles are fine, they've led to some fixes and stuff (increased turret armor on the Tiger, for example) but some niggles are just too niggly to worry about. Theoretically, a sniper's bullet could travel up a tank's barrel, detonate the shell inside, and destroy the tank. That doesn't mean Charles should waste time coding the probability in. This niggle, my lad, is one of those niggles. Go Forth! Enjoy the game! Don't worry about it! ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aloid: Wow, I think we'll need a splattered-remains-of-crew graphic for that one! If not, the game is most certainly ruined, heh!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sort of a reddish semi-liquid squirting out the exit hole is how I envision it... "Here, ma'am. Inside this old C-ration can is all of your husband's remains that we were able to scrape together. 'Course there may be a little of the gunner and loader mixed in there too, but then they were always close." Lovely. Michael [This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 08-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 When I was in the Army, that’s what I was told a Sabot round did. It hit the tank at such a velocity that it passed right through it. Creating a vacuum so strong that it sucked the crew out the exit hole. Didn’t damage the tank so much as kill the crew. However, that’s just what I was told, I’m no expert. ------------------ To conquer others is to have power, To conquer yourself is to have strength. -Lao Tzu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 When did this occur in WW2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Hmm, I wonder if a shell would really pull a vaccuum.... I imagine if the shell is still supersonic when it enter the compartment, the shock wave off the nose would cause all sorts of unpleasantness for the crew, but I think it would mostly just create a hot blast wave of air that would slosh around the turret for a bit. Anyone out there know who knows more aerodynamics than I wanna take a stab at this? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philistine Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Hmmm...sabot round punches through one side of tank and out the other and creates a vacumn in the tank which "sucks the crew out the hole"? Seems a bit...extreme. I can see that a round passing through one side of armor and having enough energy to punch through a second side of armor is going to cause a whole lot of problems for the crew apart from the "vacumn" effect. Also, I don't see any mechanism to cause a vacumn, nor do I see how they could be sucked out because of a vacumn. If there is a vacumn in the tank, obviously there will not be a sucking out, like an airplanes or spaceship's window breaking--the pressure outside the tank is greater than that inside (by definition, if there is a vacumn outside). So actually, air would rush in. Now, as CRourke pointed out, the shockwave from the shell (and superheated fragments) are going to cause a lot of problems. I don't know enough ballistics, physics or medicine to say exactly what happens...but I would imagine it's not too pretty. --Philistine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts