More doubts in CM

[Scipio]

a) Why does a tank don't detonate AP mines? Maybe they don't cause trouble to the tank, but the minefield would be uncovered.

IMO, damage on tanks/HT isn't modeled very good (maybe that's only a problem of the damage messages). I think tanks die much to fast - for example, why means a turret penetration the death of the tank? The casualties of a typical large CM battle would be in reality a medium catastrophe - a German tank division for example was equipted with 'only' 150 - 200 tanks and ~100 HTs. And also the escaping Crew. I don't know it about Alied tanks, but it was possible to remove the onboard MGs of some German tanks/HTs very fast, so even an escaping Crew (if not paniced) could be a usefull unit with a MG.

FOW - Generally, I think we get to much information about enemy units. I can't even say if I fight with Regular or Elite troops if it wouldn't be shown in the display, so how should I know it about the enemy troops? Maybe I can say how many men an enemy troop has NOW, but how should I know how much it was originally? How should I know if I face a group of Panzergrenadiere or another infantry formation? Also damgages - I don't think that we can always be sure if we have destroyed an enemy unit, especially from greater distance. Is this gun/tank destroyed, or does it looks only like it's destroyed? Maybe we need an additional stage of FOW?

Well, that's enough for the moment

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

a) Why does a tank don't detonate AP mines? Maybe they don't cause trouble to the tank, but the minefield would be uncovered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may have a point here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> IMO, damage on tanks/HT isn't modeled very good <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may have a point here as well, but I'm not sure. I once saw someone post the average number of penetrations needed to kill various tanks, and they seemed higher than in CM, but I haven't done any tests to confirm this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know it about Alied tanks, but it was possible to remove the onboard MGs of some German tanks/HTs very fast, so even an escaping Crew (if not paniced) could be a usefull unit with a MG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Game engine limitation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FOW - Generally, I think we get to much information about enemy units. I can't even say if I fight with Regular or Elite troops if it wouldn't be shown in the display, so how should I know it about the enemy troops? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM2 will have an additional stage of FOW that will hide the information you mentioned.

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Fishu]

Why would turret penetration kill the crew?

If you get turret penetration with 75mm, that has some HE content in it, to make it explode in the tank, you're going to have a mess with those shrapnels.

Should be fairly true with german vs. allied tanks. (I heard that germans had AP rounds with small content of HE working better than any other had)

[Guy w/gun]

Im no grog, so maybe I'm misinformed but I have often wondered why tanks seem to be knocked out after just one penetration. It seems to me that in some cases, 1 AP penetrating the tank wouldn't be enough to make the crew bail out. Just because the tank is damaged, and even if a crew member is incapacitated, you'd think in some cases the crew would take it's chances and stay with the tank. True, this is modeled in CM, but usually if AP hits the tank and penetrates it's knocked out/abandoned.

*BUMP*

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Guy w/gun ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu:

Why would turret penetration kill the crew?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, if you have already had a round go through the turret, then you know that someone who does not like you and has the means to cause you irreparable physical harm, has a bead on you. A good incentive to bugger off.

Regarding the crews - this has been discussed ad nauseam. Crews left their tanks in <5secs flat, because they did not know whether it would not blow up, or whether there would not be another round coming through. No time to take the stamp collection, the machine-gun, or Fido the crew terrier.

Regarding casualties in CMBO, this is a function of the fact that people tend not to surrender, or withdraw. In Real Life very often when you hit the resistance you see in CMBO, you would call it a day and try elsewhere. And if you don't, your casualties climb astronomically (e.g. early counterattacks on the Commonwealth beachheads. or Panzerbrigaden 106 and 110 (?) at Epinal, that lost almost all their armour in two days, 100+ tanks).

So, it is hardly fair to make the engine responsible for the insensitiveness that most players show towards the lives of their little pixel soldiers. You would need an operational overlay (as in CMMC) to simulate the consequences of excessive losses.

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu:

Why would turret penetration kill the crew?

If you get turret penetration with 75mm, that has some HE content in it, to make it explode in the tank, you're going to have a mess with those shrapnels.

Should be fairly true with german vs. allied tanks. (I heard that germans had AP rounds with small content of HE working better than any other had)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My question was - why does it kill the tank? You have a good point, a tank with a dead crew is a dead tank - but I usually see an escaping Crew after a turret penetration, so that can't be the answer.

Germanboy - okay, that's good arguments about the escaping crews, also that players cause casualties with their tactic and not the engine. But I still think that tanks die to fast. An 88 shell could walk through the hole tank, but that doesn't necessary mean the dead of the tank. Place a small 50/57mm AT gun vs any tank (except the Jagttiger), and it's simple math that the tank will be killed. IMO, that's not realistic - the factor 'luck' is here much to oversized. I've read that the 88 AA gun was in early war the only weapon that could save kill a T-34. The 75mm AT could also from closer distance. The 50mm was abolutly unable. Well, I can take out Panthers and Tigers with 57mm ATs - I'm not sure if it's correct. How much damage can a 57mm cause a Tiger?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

How much damage can a 57mm cause a Tiger?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Enough to disable it, brew it up, and/or make the crew leave. Depends on where you hit it of course, and whether you use Tungsten rounds or normal AP shot.

Regarding tank hits and crews bailing, I very strongly recommend reading 'Tank!' by Ken Tout. Tout was a TC in 2nd Northants Yeo, the original Recce Rgt of 11th Uk Armoured. He participated in operation TOTALIZE, the prelude to breakthrough south of Caen. A first class look into the way a tank crew fights by someone who was there. All will be revealed in that book. Another good read is '64 Days of a Normandy Summer', forgotten the author, but he was a tanker too. Also, 'Tank Tracks - 9th RTR at war'. I have been told that 'Death Traps' is also a good read.

Bottomline is: If AP penetrates, you bail. You were not killed this time, do you really want to wait whether the next round is going to brew your tank and cause a black-rimmed telegram to go out to your family? Unless you are really heroic of course, but that is what medals are for, and many of them would be dished out posthumously.

[Dunnee]

I don't know, you get issued a tank, and that's your vehicle. Say you get hit, your assistant driver or whatever is killed. Your tank is still operational and combat effective with damage to the front and one casualty. Now you can do one of two things: bail out like a wuss, or try to do some damage with what you've got left. You don't abandon your assignment because they are shooting at you, being shot at is a given. I would think bailing out after a non lethal hit is shirking your duty. Think about that.

[Peterk]

There's also a Battleground Europe book called Gold Beach with some nice pictures from the Villers Bocage battle that show what one hit on a tank can do. Not pretty.

[Dunnee]

To clear it up, I'm talking about a non-lethal penetration. Maybe minor damage to operating systems and one casualty, a non-essential crewman. I wouldn't want to face my Co. commander after bailing out because a shot took off my rear-view mirror. You get my point?

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

a) Why does a tank don't detonate AP mines? Maybe they don't cause trouble to the tank, but the minefield would be uncovered.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i believe the germans found out about certain anti mine tactics like the flail tanks and the heavy roller thing in front tanks. they set mines to explode only with a weight of ~100 lbs was set on them. they could even set it explode after a thrid or fourth weight was pressed on them i think.

so i guess the same thing could be done to ap mines.

[chrisl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee:

I wouldn't want to face my Co. commander after bailing out because a shot took off my rear-view mirror.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ones that took off the mirror are non-penetrating. Those fall into the "ricochet" category. If you read a few accounts, tank crews tended to bail after a penetrating hit--like Andreas said, someone who can kill you has a bead on you. Crews in immobilized tanks that were under AT fire didn't tend to stick around nearly as long as CM lets them.

From reading some accounts at TankBooks.com, it sounds like they would bail, hike back and get some coffee, find a fresh tank, and come back up. Tanks (new and repaired) were in greater supply than trained crews, and there was no point for a crew to be heroic and fire one more shot before brewing up if they could bail and be useful for a longer period.

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: chrisl ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee:

I don't know, you get issued a tank, and that's your vehicle. Say you get hit, your assistant driver or whatever is killed. Your tank is still operational and combat effective with damage to the front and one casualty. Now you can do one of two things: bail out like a wuss, or try to do some damage with what you've got left. You don't abandon your assignment because they are shooting at you, being shot at is a given. I would think bailing out after a non lethal hit is shirking your duty. Think about that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an interesting opinion. I am sure that the average Normandy tanker vet would be delighted to discuss it with you. Or maybe just read the books I mentioned above. Sounds like you could learn something.

'Non-essential crewman' - now that one is a riot. If he was non-essential, why would he be on board? I can see the tank designers going over the drawings now "Yeah, and here we have a folding chair, so that they can take a tourist on a battlefield tour, that way we will make some money back on the tank."

Or maybe they just had a stash of crewmen on the back deck, to ensure that there was always one available in case someone got hit.

So I thought about it, and it is rubbish. Shirking your duty that is. Read some books written by the guys who were there. Or maybe really go to an American Legion or Royal British Legion club, find yourself a tanker who bailed, and tell him he was 'shirking his duty' then. Make sure you tape it for posterity.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Andreas beat me to it, so I'll bite my tongue, and only flame thusly:

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

Andreas beat me to it, so I'll bite my tongue, and only flame thusly:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice smiley - there was a guy around here who had Aesop (I think) as his sig:

'It is easy to be brave from a distance.'

Paraphrase: 'It is easy to be brave in front of your monitor.'

Calling vets who bailed 'wusses' ranks right up there some of the most clueless drivel I have read on this forum.

I wonder why they did not disable their tanks before going into battle, I can not even begin to imagine the horror these guys went through, and reading about it is bad enough. Tout (I think) says somewhere that a really big mistake he made was to go to a brewed Sherman and look inside. It still had the charred remains of some of the crew-members in it. Not good to be reminded of it, when it could have been you.

The grandfather of an English friend of mine was in Normandy. He can't talk about it, because he starts crying when the memories come back. So I guess that makes him a wuss too?

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Dunnee]

Hey guess what....eat me. I wasn't talking about ricochets or immobilizations, I was talking about being able to fight on. It's not about being immobilized and waiting to die, then I would bail. It's about being hit and being able to carry on. As for non-essential crewmen or equipment, in every vehicle or machine made throughout time, there are pieces that the machine could still operate without. An assistant driver, by name, is only an assistant. Sucks for little johnny, but goose it Albers and let's bag some german tanks...Now, are you the sort to run and hide when the enemy is shooting at you? Personally, I want some payback. If I can do it with a slightly damaged tank, I will, if I have to get a new one, I will. People die, and things have to be done, if you have to use a tank that's a little busted up, so be it. But that's just me...

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Dunnee ]

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Regarding tank hits and crews bailing, I very strongly recommend reading 'Tank!' by Ken Tout. Tout was a TC in 2nd Northants Yeo, the original Recce Rgt of 11th Uk Armoured. He participated in operation TOTALIZE, the prelude to breakthrough south of Caen. A first class look into the way a tank crew fights by someone who was there. All will be revealed in that book. Another good read is '64 Days of a Normandy Summer', forgotten the author, but he was a tanker too. Also, 'Tank Tracks - 9th RTR at war'. I have been told that 'Death Traps' is also a good read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the hints, I guess I can improve my english with this books, too .

Anyway, I guess we go a little of topic. Okay, when I think about your arguments, I can accept that a crew tends to bail

out. But I still ask myself if the - especially light - AT guns are not a bit to powerful? Maybe I'm wrong with this, cause I think the normal AT gun wasn't used for infight, more on distances of 1000m and above. On close distance like in CM they are much more lethal.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee:

But that's just me...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and you are clueless and devoid of any respect for the people who died in the war. You also have no clue about what counts in a war. We have seen as much, and I am sure you learned all you know about war from playing with a GI-Joe action figure.

I am constantly amazed at the ignorance that is possible in this world.

Now anyone actually interested in getting a glimpse of what it was like to be in a tank:

'Tank tracks - 9th RTR at war'

'64 days of a Normandy summer'

'Tank!'

Recommended by others:

'Death Traps'

[Dunnee]

To clear it up right now, I have the UTMOST respect to any tank vet, or any vet for that matter. My wuss comment was made in context of a minor hit. Everyone here is so concerned with being historical and kissing ass, I've got strong opinions and I say em. Calling me brave in front of a monitor is stupid, you know absolutely nothing about me, and I know nothing about you, so piss off. You got your opinion, I've got mine, but don't come in here trying to make me out to be this or that, you can't even begin to know me. You wanna judge after two responses in a thread? You're more of a loser than I would have thought in the first place...peace out, I got **** to do.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

But I still ask myself if the - especially light - AT guns are not a bit to powerful? Maybe I'm wrong with this, cause I think the normal AT gun wasn't used for infight, more on distances of 1000m and above. On close distance like in CM they are much more lethal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem about the books, glad to be of service.

Light AT guns essentially depend on being able to get flankshots. Flank armour on Panthers was weak (Tigers were much better). The Germans did that with their light AT guns (37mm and 50mm) against the KV-1 and the T34 when these appeared. They also used Tungsten rounds, and special aim at the turret ring. A non-penetrating, but disabling kill, since it would make the turret jam, and the 'wuss-tankers' would then retire from the field. This bit of info I got from a 37mm AT gun operator who was trained on it later in the war. I specifically asked him how they thought they could kill a T34 with the 'Heeresanklopfgeraet' (Army door knocker), as the 37mm was fondly known, and turret ring was his immediate answer. They were apparently trained to fire at that spot specifically.

[Scipio]

HEY, Germanboy, Dunee - if you want to see a locked threat, start your own for your private quarrel, don't let my dicussion be locked for your problem. IST DAS JETZT KLAR???

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

No problem about the books, glad to be of service.

Light AT guns essentially depend on being able to get flankshots. Flank armour on Panthers was weak (Tigers were much better). The Germans did that with their light AT guns (37mm and 50mm) against the KV-1 and the T34 when these appeared. They also used Tungsten rounds, and special aim at the turret ring. A non-penetrating, but disabling kill, since it would make the turret jam, and the 'wuss-tankers' would then retire from the field. This bit of info I got from a 37mm AT gun operator who was trained on it later in the war. I specifically asked him how they thought they could kill a T34 with the 'Heeresanklopfgeraet' (Army door knocker), as the 37mm was fondly known, and turret ring was his immediate answer. They were apparently trained to fire at that spot specifically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An interesting point - it seems to me that the guns in CM are able to fire a special spot, it looks more like lottery what they hit. Of course, that could be a problem with the - often and easy forgotten - game abstraction.

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

Maybe I'm wrong with this, cause I think the normal AT gun wasn't used for infight, more on distances of 1000m and above. On close distance like in CM they are much more lethal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Distance is a huge issue. The Germans were able to take out tanks at very long ranges using the 75mm and 88mm AT guns. Previously (and to do the turret ring stunt) when encountering medium Soviet tanks with their light AT guns, they had to hold fire until the tanks were less than 500m away. Not very nice.

Later-on they upgraded, and the consequences were felt by the Western Allies. If a heavy AT gun has a bead on you from say 1,500m away, you are powerless in your Sherman. It is almost certain that you will not even know what hits you, and the chances of taking out the gun before it gets you are very slim. If you have not been hit, you pop smoke and make yourself scarce. If you have been hit, you thank God that you can still think about bailing, than do it, and make yourself scarce. That is why bailing is better than dieing. You live to fight another day (or later on the same).

The Allies had vast stocks of tanks, but they had a serious lack of crews for them in the bridgehead, as somebody else remarked. The US had to draft in infantry, and the UK had to disband regiments and merge them, to provide replacement crews after GOODWOOD. That is also why crews normally would not be expected to take their place in the line and fight as infantry. They were expected to go back, get another tank and try again later.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

[QB]

An interesting point - it seems to me that the guns in CM are able to fire a special spot, it looks more like lottery what they hit. Of course, that could be a problem with the - often and easy forgotten - game abstraction.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point - you could e.g. see the 'Gun damage' message as an indication of a turret-ring hit. While the gun would still be functional, it would also be aimed at one point only, so it is technically not correct, but the effect of either would be that you retire and draw a new tank.

[The Commissar]

Dunne,

Fair enough, you say we do not know you. We dont. So lets get that out of the way first.

Were you ever in a combat situation, period. I don't mean taking a swing at your younger brother, but with dangerous people set on killing you shooting up the place.

OK, now, were you ever in a tank in this same situation? Have you ever operated a tank? Do you know anything about tanks or operating tanks, or actually fighting with them?

Before you answer this, I cannot judge you. You may be a hot-shot vet with a collection of victories under your belt, so you would have all the right to say "Unlike those wusses 60 years ago, I stayed in my tank even when there was nothing remaining but a burning hulk, the various body parts of my fellow crewman, and AP shells, which I then proceeded to throw at the other guy by hand."

Hell, if that's the case, I respect you and your bravery. However, I highly doubt that is the case. Unless you've ever been in the situation you discussing, I wouldn't boast about how you would behave.