Jump to content

Light tank vulnerability to small arms in CMBB


Recommended Posts

Yesterday, I was playing a QB vs AI. One of my British sharpshooters took a pot-shot at a crewman in an H-39 Hotchkiss at 400m. A second later, the vehicle was 'abandoned'. I assume I killed the tank-commander/gunner and the driver bailed out as a result.

This raises a question in my mind about CMBB tanks. If I understand correctly, lighter tanks early in the war would have had smaller crews (generalisation, tell me if I'm wrong). Stuff like tankettes and tanks with 2 crewmembers will be really vulnerable to their commanders being picked off by sharpshooters (or infantry, of course). Can anyone else shed any light on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PondScum

Yup, killing the tank commander on the Hotchkiss always seems to result in its being abandoned. Without a gunner, there's nothing left for the driver to do but drive uselessly around the battlefield drawing fire and waiting to die - and none of them seem to choose that course of action smile.gif

Compare this with killing the gunner on a 251/1 halftrack. You immediately get a buttoned/shocked effect, but the driver doesn't bail out, presumably because he can still fulfill his main role of ferrying troops around the battlefield.

I agree that this effect is going to be very important with any two-man tankettes in CMBB. Button 'em up early!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I've just noticed that the frontal armour on the Pz I is really quite nicely sloped for an early war "tank" and I imagine such a slope may have saved its bacon from time to time against the small stuff. The more I think about it the more I'm amazed that the Germans didn't think to use sloped armour for their subsequent tank designs until the Pz V came around.

Thanks for the pic. BTW.

Regards

Jim R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

You know, I've just noticed that the frontal armour on the Pz I is really quite nicely sloped for an early war "tank"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Greetings! If I'm not mistaken, that part of the 'tank' might actually be a British design, which the Germans plonked a turret onto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More specifically the Carden-Lloyd carrier chassis (this is a Mk4)

carden-lloyd4.jpg

If this is even the right model, then it looks like the armor plate is a German part of the design (it looks welded instead of riveted for ex) though the idea of sloping it was already in the original.

(I fear this will only serve to show what a miserable excuse for a grog I am)

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure but if you are referring to the Pz. Kpfw. I , it was built by the Krupp Company who I assume was German. It evolved from the experimental Model K-1 which appeared in 1934. Did you know ( probably do ) that it had two 7.92mm only? Sorry no picture but I will be learning to do that some day. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: here's the link to answer all questions:

PzKpfw 1

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

I am not sure but if you are referring to the Pz. Kpfw. I , it was built by the Krupp Company who I assume was German. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Krupp...they made my coffemaker.

Anyway the Pz. I was based on the Carden Lloyd Chassis which was purchased from England. [whether just the prototypes used the actual English hardware or not is beyond the reach of my meagre library] So the question is, who thought up the armor slope.

Sorry no picture but I will be learning to do that some day.

Just learned it myself... What I'm looking for is someone to tell me how to make coloured text and big letters...

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...