Horncastle Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Is it wrong for me to think the CM modelling of tank kills is incorrect. If I was buttoned up in a tank duelling with someone else at a range of 300-500m I would keep shooting at the thing until I was sure it was dead. However in CM a TC seems to be 100% accurate all of the time when to stop disenaging the target. Of course if the thing brews up it obvious the thing is out of action. Seeing that if your lucky a tank can survive full penetration, I see no difference from the firing TC how he can discern a penetration that does KO and one that doesnt KO ( no innuendos about sexual prowess please!). Taking it further what about armour hits that cause crew casulaties? One could assume that you would disengage a target if it stopped firing back after a few good hits to it ( dangerous but might happen?) however the target could then fight back alter albeit less effectively. What was the SOP for engaing tanks in WWII? I can understand you plugging shot after shot into a tank to render it useless and unrecoverable, but how in the heat of battle would they confirm a knockout and would they fire a few more rounds to make sure? Would a better model be that tanks will often fire an extra few rounds into a target to ensure a kill? With Green crew obviously not as competent at confirming a KO, and sometimes even firing at KO vechiles might be an idea. Cheers for comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 At least damaged guns doesn't make the targets unvalid. I had a Jagdtiger get it's gun knocked out quite fast, and for another 20 turns or so the Allied Shermans kept spending ammo on it instead of doing something useful... In this case I played hotseat vs myself, so as Allied commander I ordered the Shermans to go for other targets, but this JT was a targeting and bullet magnet. Cheers Olle ------------------ Webmaster of Combat Mission för svensktalande, a CM site in Swedish. Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Icelanders are also welcome as members, others can still enjoy pictures and downloads. Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Would the sight of the crew bailing out confirm matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Also, if there were other targets to engage, wouldn't you be a lot more liekly to presume your current target was deads? You know the guys shooting at you aren't! Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 When I was taeching a few years ago a colleague of mine had just returned from the Gulf War, where he commanded a company of Abrams MBTs. I asked him to come to a class on military history I was teaching and describe some of his experiences. One of the things he talked about was how hard it was to tell if the sabot (kinetic penetrator) rounds they were firing at Iraqi T-72s actually killed the target most of the time. Often all they'd see was a puff of smoke as the DU shells struck home. The tanks were nearlyu always killed, but it wasn't very spactacular. He said they were so disappointed in the visual representation of tank kills they took to firing HEAT instead, because it made fancier explosions and blew turrets off. The point being, I suppose, that even today it's hard to see if a tank you shot at 1500 meters or whatnot is actually dead, except that it stops moving and shooting at you <g>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Originally posted by Horncastle: Is it wrong for me to think the CM modelling of tank kills is incorrect. If I was buttoned up in a tank duelling with someone else at a range of 300-500m I would keep shooting at the thing until I was sure it was dead. However in CM a TC seems to be 100% accurate all of the time when to stop disenaging the target. Of course if the thing brews up it obvious the thing is out of action. Seeing that if your lucky a tank can survive full penetration, I see no difference from the firing TC how he can discern a penetration that does KO and one that doesnt KO ( no innuendos about sexual prowess please!). Taking it further what about armour hits that cause crew casulaties? One could assume that you would disengage a target if it stopped firing back after a few good hits to it ( dangerous but might happen?) however the target could then fight back alter albeit less effectively. What was the SOP for engaing tanks in WWII? I can understand you plugging shot after shot into a tank to render it useless and unrecoverable, but how in the heat of battle would they confirm a knockout and would they fire a few more rounds to make sure? Would a better model be that tanks will often fire an extra few rounds into a target to ensure a kill? With Green crew obviously not as competent at confirming a KO, and sometimes even firing at KO vechiles might be an idea. Cheers for comments I would suggest that the gunner HAS a telescopic sight and has a pretty good idea where the round went and what damage it did after the smoke clears and the dust settles. As mentioned bailed crews leave hatches open and that's obvious (hint for CM2: abandoned tanks should be modeled with open hatches). Yes a burning tank is sure KO. BUT yes, there are plenty of examples of armour penetrations that lead to tanks that are KO'd without burning or any other visual evidence that leave you wondering how the TC and gunner could know that right away that it was dead. It is a valid point. Perhaps addressed in CM2..... -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-08-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horncastle Posted February 8, 2001 Author Share Posted February 8, 2001 What about this situation then. Your a TC in the middle of a large battle you emerge in some woodland and see a tank with its flank to you down in the town 500M away. It looks a bit lifeless admitadly but would you take a chance with it before advancing? I certainly wouldnt Id pop a few rounds in the side. In war I am quite sure that things like conserving ammo and taking chances like this were not the done thing. And I certainly wouldnt rely on a probable kill that might match the description of this example coming over the radio to ease my worries earlier on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Just for the record, the author of DEATH TRAPS makes the point repeatedly that Germans would shoot at Allied tanks until they were burning. The reason was that they wanted to make the tanks unrecoverable and unrepairable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts