Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted February 29, 2000 Share Posted February 29, 2000 I don't know if this has been mentioned, but can vehicles run-over and kill enemy infantry? ie. Ramming Speed! 'Cause when your tanks are out of HE, what can they do? My slightly mis-informed friend "KILLEM ALL" (remember the ALL YOUR MAMAS thread) about the CM experience keeps asking, "Can we ram them?" But I, knowing that the graphics do the ol' "clipping" bug, I know that "Ramming Speed" is probably not modeled, unless that has been changed. ------------------ "Cry Woe...Destruction...Ruin and Decay. The worst is Death...and Death will have His day."--Gen. Chang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT Posted February 29, 2000 Share Posted February 29, 2000 I had brought this up but I was aiming at running over small ATGs and other heavy infantry heavy items. Basically, nope. I did see such an event in some Sov battle footage. A T34 literally ran over a German 37mm AND crews, the sight of one soldier being flipped up by the tracks was terrifying and fascinating at the same timem, was shot from what seemed the drivers hatch. I do have some doubt that this occured often except for the Russian front. More likely it occured early on in the war and as ATGs got better it became less likely. But that is my opinion. MikeT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted February 29, 2000 Share Posted February 29, 2000 It happened on Guadalcanal too, and it was deliberate. I've heard stories of it occurring in Western Europe, but haven't seen much in the way of confirmation. ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted February 29, 2000 Share Posted February 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: It happened on Guadalcanal too, and it was deliberate. I've heard stories of it occurring in Western Europe, but haven't seen much in the way of confirmation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From "Closing with the Enemy" by Michael Doubler (p.53), describing the fighting for Hill 192 outside St. Lo: The Germans put up stiff resistance from the very beginning. One tank company lost six Shermans to German panzerfausts. Fanatical Germans defending one position refused to surrender and were run over and buried alive by one of the 741st's dozer tanks Sheesh, what a way to go. Ethan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 29, 2000 Share Posted February 29, 2000 CM does allow vehicles to run over guns and knock them out. You can watch their crews run away like the little vehicle-fearing electronic cowards that they are. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostro Posted February 29, 2000 Share Posted February 29, 2000 In Close Combat, drivers - german drivers - were often the greatests killers of the tanks (12 kills or so sometimes) ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted February 29, 2000 Share Posted February 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: CM does allow vehicles to run over guns and knock them out. You can watch their crews run away like the little vehicle-fearing electronic cowards that they are. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Charles, that is interesting. But, so I take it then that CM models infantry being "smart enough" to get out of the way before being run over, right? Only makes sense, deducting from how the gun crews run away from the guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted February 29, 2000 Share Posted February 29, 2000 The Tigerfibel explains to the crewman that maingun rounds are expensive so they should be conserved. They are cautioned never to waste HE on a target that can be defeated by MG fire and also not to waste MG ammo on targets that can be runover. http://www.esatclear.ie/~godot/91.jpg Men of the Tiger! Save! Use the thick armor! Go! Running over is cheaper than the MG! The MG is cheaper than the main gun! Turn in casings and ammo cans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Ned Anderson Posted February 29, 2000 Share Posted February 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu: From "Closing with the Enemy" by Michael Doubler (p.53), describing the fighting for Hill 192 outside St. Lo: The Germans put up stiff resistance from the very beginning. One tank company lost six Shermans to German panzerfausts. Fanatical Germans defending one position refused to surrender and were run over and buried alive by one of the 741st's dozer tanks Sheesh, what a way to go. Ethan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In Desert Storm, the 1st Infantry Division buried alive hundreds of Iraqis while making the initial breach in the Iraqi defenses. There was talk about court-martials until the 1st ID commander accepted responsibility for his units actions. I guess something about expecting 60-80% casualites in the 1st ID during the breach made the soldiers of the Big Red One a little less forgiving toward their enemies. Greg ------------------ I love the f***ing Army and the Army loves f***ing me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 Court-martials? What the hell for? Is it moral to kill Iraqis using "precision weapons" and DU penetrators but immoral to bury them alive ? Hell, it's war. The aim is to kill the enemy and to kill him in large numbers while losing little yourself. Bulldozing them isn't outlawed in the rules of war, neither is running them over with a tank etc. Sure it might be a slower and more painful death than simply being shot with a .5 cal in the head but this is war for god's sake. The US Army is seriously messed up if it is going to threaten to court-martial men for coming up with an innovative way to kill the enemy at the lowest risk possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 I think it's worth bearing in mind that there are certain rules and conventions (both literal and figurative) that do cover conduct in war. eg. For my own country of New Zealand to deploy and use landmines would be 'against the law' because we signed the Canadian (good work there Canada!), No-Use-Landmines Treaty Thing, (it's official name eludes me, something Protocol i think). So any soldiers who did would be in big trouble and govt if they heard about it would probably prosecute them etc etc.. i dunno. My guess is that the US Army obviously felt that some law or convention or protocol had been breached. It may simply have been that the US A felt that the Iraqis had not had enough time to surrender, or there may have been evidence that they tried too, (like, stood up and waved arms or something) but were burried anyway. Or the US A may have felt it was an inhumane way of killing someone, and therefore also bad, (ok lets not get into "it's all inhumane" or "war is hell" type responses, this is what the world has generally agreed in way of rules, so that's that!). Like, using napalm I'm fairly sure is now considered bad, as is dum-dum bullets and a host of other things, (and more recently, it was decided by the International Court of Justice that the use of Nuclear Weapons would constitute a crime against humanity, hurah NZ for helping to spearhead that one). Anyway. I guess the point is the US A probably had a good reason, burried somewhere in the rules and statutes it's bound by PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 Peter, Oh I don't doubt that there's some obscure code against using bulldozers against enemy troops whilst it IS legal to use them against enemy fortifications (legal distinctions etc etc.) Personally though I'd have shot my men if they DIDN'T use the bulldozers as I'm pretty much an all's fair if it helps your side win and is aimed at killing only enemy soldiers proponent. FWIW I personally think that if it helps reduce your casualties and simply kills enemy soldiers in a slightly different way than the "legal and OK way" then it was justified but I guess I'm outnumbered in this PC world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 Agree Fionn. I know it won't matter but anyway... ------------------ Visit my webpage! http://cm4mac.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 ok.. maybe it would help if this was in context. IIRC the iraqi's that were buried were in a trench. They had dug a trench to prevent the american armor from crossing. The american army called up tanks with blades, lowerd them and ran at the trench. This of course filled in the trench so the armor could cross. Also buried anyone that was in the trench also. I see no way this would be a war crime. (unless a war crime against the iraqi army for bad tactics). Lorak ------------------ ------------------------- This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this is mine. It is my life. Without my rifle I am useless. Without me, my rifle is useless... http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 Actually they didn't even use tanks they just used very lightly armoured engineer bulldozers. These things are only the size of little forklift trucks and WERE engaged by Iraqis. The story is that when the Iraqis saw these things coming they had enough time to run and escape BUT if they paused and shot at the dozer then the dozer was so fast that they wouldn't have time to fire AND escape the trench. Of course that's a little propagandaish but probably has a good kernel of truth. Anyways, its war I'd have given the guys in the 1st medals for coming up with something innovative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: FWIW I personally think that if it helps reduce your casualties and simply kills enemy soldiers in a slightly different way than the "legal and OK way" then it was justified but I guess I'm outnumbered in this PC world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't that pretty much the definition of a tac nuke? But you're not in the minority. The papers just love controversy and if one doesn't exist they'll invent one. Not sure medals are warranted, but I'd buy 'em a case of beer anyway. ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 I guess I'm just a generous kind of guy . It is funny watching all the news reports on TV. My wife is a total "zero knowledge about war" kind of gal and it is funny to see her reaction to stories about Chechnya etc. The media really can warp public opinion. Thankfully a little explanation about just WHY it is desirable to blast a building apart instead of sending 100 men to their deaths in room to room fighting usually does wonders . Hmm, as you may have guessed media manipulation and misrepresentation of battlefield realities really annoys me.. I'll stop now before I start ranting . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 Start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu: From "Closing with the Enemy" by Michael Doubler (p.53), describing the fighting for Hill 192 outside St. Lo: The Germans put up stiff resistance from the very beginning. One tank company lost six Shermans to German panzerfausts. Fanatical Germans defending one position refused to surrender and were run over and buried alive by one of the 741st's dozer tanks Sheesh, what a way to go. Ethan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In Burgett's "Seven roads to hell" it mentions Panzers parking over GI's foxholes and racing the engine thereby gasing them with exhaust fumes. If the GI's tried to escape, the were gunned down. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Ned Anderson Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 I bet you that if CNN - or anyone from the press for that matter - was present when the M9 Armored Combat Earthmovers were burying those Iraqis there would have been a court martial. As I understand it, the proposed court martials were pre-emptive, to show the press that had this story become big news that the Army was already working to punish those involved, even if they were doing their job. Such is the way things work in the military these days.. Greg A/1-178 Inf (Air Assault) IL ARNG ------------------ I love the f***ing Army and the Army loves f***ing me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 Fionn, bassically on the International level and on the level of International Law you -would- be a minority, and it's nothing to do with being PC or not. Remember some of the first laws and rules of combat were laid down a cenrtury ago with the Hague convention and the excellent work of the International Committee of the Red Cross after some particularly bloody European battles. Frankly, if I was drafted into a modern war where two large conventional armies, (as oppose to any kinda partisan style war such as Kosovo, Chechnya, Colombia etc, where rules are often followed less), i'd be VERY happy to have at least some guarantees under signed statutes and proceedures rather than none at all. Thanks to the rules of war I have a great uncle who survived ww2, after, in his words "I make give up!" on a beach on d-day (upon seeing a black line of ships where the horrizon should be, this thrice-wounded invalided vet of the eastern front couldn't be arsed any more hehe), captured by the Canadians he spend the rest of the war in a prisoner of war camp, no doubt appreciating what the Red Cross had achieved by means of POW rules and regs, (rights to mail, food, doctor etc etc etc). Indeed, the mention of a tac-nuke comes up, and again it should be noted that most of the worlds governments would now agree that the use of a nuclear weapon is a crime against humanity. Of course, there are those that would argue that genocide is simply the best way to make sure you don't get shot in the back by some ununiformed with an ak47, but the rest of the world, and probably 90% of the worlds militaries would be revolted at the idea. But genocide does sit comfortably with your "helps reduce your casualties" concept. Of course, i'm getting a little rhetorical here hehe, but I think the general point has to do with appropriate ammounts of force.. and there's differing ideas on this concept. Many would argue that the Rusians could be guilty of war crimes for simply using too much force and using it indescriminately, (debate over tragedies such as Dresden has similarly covered this idea). I think the bulldozing debate is as has been suggested, largely political, (why are we more disgusted at people being burried alive than being carpet bombed 24/7!? ) ..but there could be more to it than we're aware, which is i guess what i wanted to bring up. Like, maybe there was no chance for them to surrender or something, in which case you could say the soldiers were a bit bad, (although i'd not get-medieval on their asses myself). Some more info on this topic would be cool, because i'm curious as to why the army suggested court martials and what was the outcome PeterNZ (someone stop this long rambly mood of mine!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 aaaargh! (off topic pedantic rant) COURT - noun. Nouns can be plural. MARTIAL - adjective. adjectives not pural, never, no way, nuh-uh. Unless you're watching the Cleveland Browns of course. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming... Chechnya? Hell, I think I'm the only one that was rootin' hard for the Russkies in that one. Traitors get what traitors deserve. ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 Ive driven an M9 ACE. What you can do is fill the front end with dirt, lift the blade up and then theres this ram that will push all the dirt out the front to fill in a trench .. I think 9 cubic yards. Filling in a trench full of humans wouldnt be that smart as the ACE is lightly armored and an RPG would easily kill it. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GriffinCheng Posted March 1, 2000 Share Posted March 1, 2000 This thread keeps me wonder. I am not sure if US media would love public to see two opfor fighter on equal grounds (showing how the dedicated American boys fighting in bloodshed) rather than one-sided battle (aka slaughter). I believe the use of bulldozer on the initial landing was to clear the mine field and the obstacles on the beach. I am not sure under what circumstances the bulldozer was ordered to fill the trench. I have read story about President Bush ordered US to stop bombing retreating Iraqi "convoy" after the American general public saw the wreckage on CNN. Is it true? Griffin @ work...almost lunch now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts