jKMkIII Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Funny. I have had my guns damaged twice in CMBB. 1st my Marder III was hit by T-34 from distance of 500m(?) I think they got couple front hull penetrations first. 2nd my PzIV was hit by 76.2mm AT gun from distance of 200m(?) Sure my crews were happy that they only got gun damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 In a recent scenario my wife made for me I found my infantry and my KV-1 up against German infantry backed up by a Tiger and a PzKw4h. Ahhh, I thought, but plenty of terrain and some fast moves later I caught the Tiger on the flank but at about 500m, first hit disabled the gun, 2nd hit bounced off, 3rd hit immobilised it, I was lucky as the Tiger missed me but the point of this ramble is that the crew of the KV-1 must have realised that they had no chance of penetrating the hull at that range or very little chance and aimed at what they could damage i.e the gun and tracks. I am no tank crewman but surely it makes sense to hit what you can with as much force as you can to stop the other lot doing it to you? I wonder if this is actually coded into CMBB that gunners will have a higher chance of hitting guns and tracks on high armour vehicles? I for one was grateful to see the Tiger taken out and efficiently too. I cannot complain about gun damage as what is good for the AI is good for me at some point. I do not intend this as a dig at Patton21 but too me is seems logical that tank crews will do anything to stop a heavy tank firing at them, if that means damaging the gun then so be it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by tools4fools: But then what if you hit a MG carrier with your Stug IIIG main gun and you get a "MG hit" and the thingy is still alive afterwards?!??!!! It's an abstraction in the CM engine. Gun/MG or track hits never penetrate any further, so they don't cause any other damage to the vehicle except maybe a gun damage/immobilization. And for the coax MG: I have had gun-damaged tanks of mine still fire the coax MG, so not all gun damages take it out as well. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: And for the coax MG: I have had gun-damaged tanks of mine still fire the coax MG, so not all gun damages take it out as well. I find that hard to believe given that BFC said coax MG and gun always go down together. Is this tank of yours still capable of using the "target" command? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tools4fools Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tools4fools: But then what if you hit a MG carrier with your Stug IIIG main gun and you get a "MG hit" and the thingy is still alive afterwards?!??!!! It's an abstraction in the CM engine. Gun/MG or track hits never penetrate any further, so they don't cause any other damage to the vehicle except maybe a gun damage/immobilization. Dschugaschwili </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pies Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Take a look at This Page Shows how a ricochet can disable the gun mechanism and cause the crew to bail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapitein KAB Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 It would be nice if we could see some (light) damage to tanks, e.g. some gun damage, repaired by the crew in the field. Anyone knows how long repairs that were done by crews could take? (for example, replacing a track) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 From my observation the problem, if any, is not as big as it seems. In my games, the overwhelming majority of gun damage I find unjustified is from autocannons. And that one can be exploited in gamey ways due to the extremly hard to spot Flak guns (20mm Axis/Russian and 37mm Axis). ACs and light tanks have the same autocannons with sam eROF and accuracy, but they don't show the same problem because you can quickly get rid of them or move out of LOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 About making field repairs during a scenario, imagine how long it would take you to change a flat tire on your car, for example, while BEING SHOT AT! I can imagine allowing damaged vehicles to be towed away (with great difficulty) while under fire, but executing actual track repairs while in the teeth of an typical CMBB firefight would be a tough sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 At Portinhoikka two Finnish StuG's were preparing to "greet" several dozens of Soviet tanks with infantry approaching their way. But just as the lead vehicle's gunner was ready to fire, it came out that the firing mechanism didn't work. Argh. So they drove away, and the commander changed place with the gunner as he knew the vehicle better. He located the problem in the electric wiring and fixed it, when an enemy T-34 showed up. The gun worked like a dream. I haven't had much trouble with light FlaK to heavy tanks, but artillery... it really scares me what a well-placed heavy barrage can do to a too-closely kept tank platoon with infantry support. Fortunately in 1.03 you can keep the commanders inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: And for the coax MG: I have had gun-damaged tanks of mine still fire the coax MG, so not all gun damages take it out as well. I find that hard to believe given that BFC said coax MG and gun always go down together. Is this tank of yours still capable of using the "target" command? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 It would be interesting but I think it has already be previously discussed that if the sights get hit, one might be still able to use the gun in open sights or whatever it is at really close targets.... C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by Pantherbait: QUOTE]Got any proof? Got any proof he's wrong ? [/QB] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by Kapitein KAB: It would be nice if we could see some (light) damage to tanks, e.g. some gun damage, repaired by the crew in the field. Anyone knows how long repairs that were done by crews could take? (for example, replacing a track) Gun damage that would be extensive enough to put it out of action would require a replacement barrel, by rear area engineers or EMEs. Not something the crew could manage with some no.8 wire and a pair of pliers. [ June 12, 2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by Kapitein KAB: Anyone knows how long repairs that were done by crews could take? (for example, replacing a track) Depends on many variables, such as how extensive the damage to the track was, were any of the road wheels, or other running gear damaged, and how available spares are. But usually it took hours and could take days if you had to wait for spares to show up. In any event, it was not done under fire. Bottom line: outside CM's limits. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Field repairs can be as simple as plugging back in a loose wire to having to put the entire track back on the vehicle. If you are extremely lucky and recieve a "Gun hit" that knocks the firing wires loose or splashes something on the sights then it might be possible to repair it. Without the sights though, there really is no way to accuratly aim the gun other than to look down the barrel. There are no open sights. The commander can guestimate by looking outside the tank but he will take many hits before he manages to zero in unless he is just really lucky. As for throwing track, unless you are lucky enough to be able to walk it back on just by turning the vehicle getting it back in place can take anywhere from a few minutes to several hours. I have put track back on an M113 with a few hits from a sledge in 15 to 20 minutes. I have also had to completely remove the track from the vehicle, tow it and the vehicle to a good piece of ground and then put it back on, a process that takes at minimum an hour or two. All this was done with the relativly light track of the M113. For an M60 or M1 the track is so heavy that the crew cannot lift more than a couple shoes and often require another vehicle to pull it around for them. The fastest I have seen a crew break track and then put it back on is a little over an hour. Of course all of this is without the fun of enemy fire. AFVs are bullet magnets and disabled ones doubly so. They are also made from very heavy components that don't like to come apart easily. This tends to make repairs on the battlefield so rare that modeling them in the CM environment would be very ahistorical. One thing I will say though is that I have never had a vehicle return during an operation. While repairing vehicles under fire may not be possible, repairing them between battles was often done as vehicles tended to go down for less than catastrophic damage. I know the manual states that it is possible for vehicles to return if their crews survive but I have yet to see it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantherbait Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Originally posted by Bastables: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pantherbait: QUOTE]Got any proof? Got any proof he's wrong ? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Originally posted by Pantherbait: Thanks, I just get a kick out of the 'ole "Prove it !" reply, as if the original poster has just insulted someone's mother instead of just expressing an opinion,lol. [/QB]Expressing unsubstantiated opinions as the main trust of an argument is generally seen as "not on" on this board. The burden of proof is actually on Patton21, he has yet to make any arguments other than a statement of opinion ergo he has no valid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton21 Posted June 15, 2003 Author Share Posted June 15, 2003 I dont see why I would take the time to post a message here if I did not want an answer to that question. If I wanted to fabricate a tank gun damage question I could have made up a much better one. Like why are small female lemurs half bald half red fur coming out of my gun whenever it turns 35 degrees north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantherbait Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Originally posted by Bastables: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pantherbait: Thanks, I just get a kick out of the 'ole "Prove it !" reply, as if the original poster has just insulted someone's mother instead of just expressing an opinion,lol. Expressing unsubstantiated opinions as the main trust of an argument is generally seen as "not on" on this board. The burden of proof is actually on Patton21, he has yet to make any arguments other than a statement of opinion ergo he has no valid argument. [/QB]</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: 50 percent of the time that my heavy tanks come under fire from ligh armor they get their guns damaged, this makes the tank usless.Pretty much I dont understand why this happens. Because the gun or some other equipment vital to its operatoin has been damaged beyond repair. I flak gun should not be able to damage a heavy tanks gun. Whats up with this. Think of it this way - those light guns can ONLY damage stuff outside the armour - tracks and armament and head-out commanders, so of course that's all they do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Originally posted by Pantherbait: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pantherbait: Thanks, I just get a kick out of the 'ole "Prove it !" reply, as if the original poster has just insulted someone's mother instead of just expressing an opinion,lol. Expressing unsubstantiated opinions as the main trust of an argument is generally seen as "not on" on this board. The burden of proof is actually on Patton21, he has yet to make any arguments other than a statement of opinion ergo he has no valid argument. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantherbait Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Originally posted by Bastables: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pantherbait: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pantherbait: Thanks, I just get a kick out of the 'ole "Prove it !" reply, as if the original poster has just insulted someone's mother instead of just expressing an opinion,lol. Expressing unsubstantiated opinions as the main trust of an argument is generally seen as "not on" on this board. The burden of proof is actually on Patton21, he has yet to make any arguments other than a statement of opinion ergo he has no valid argument. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Originally posted by Pantherbait: Fine. You, or any of the other replies, work for BTS ? If not, what's the beef ? [/QB]Two points, on my beef One, Patton21 argument is wrong in methodology and conclusion. Two, when posting unsupported opinions as fact, expect to be called upon it. If you don’t want your precious opinions to be contradicted don’t post them on public boards such as this, in fact keep them to yourself, as this is the safest method for maintaining them. Working or not working for BTS is irrelevant on deciding if to argue against poorly thought out and argued opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantherbait Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Originally posted by Bastables: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pantherbait: Fine. You, or any of the other replies, work for BTS ? If not, what's the beef ? Two points, on my beef One, Patton21 argument is wrong in methodology and conclusion. Two, when posting unsupported opinions as fact, expect to be called upon it. If you don’t want your precious opinions to be contradicted don’t post them on public boards such as this, in fact keep them to yourself, as this is the safest method for maintaining them. Working or not working for BTS is irrelevant on deciding if to argue against poorly thought out and argued opinions. [/QB]</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts