flamingknives Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Originally posted by Lars: And the bow gunner was usually an assistant driver. You don't end up short the bow gunner/assistant driver unless something happened to the original one. Question though, was the bow gunner usually kicked upstairs to replace the dead TC? From what I've read, having a full turret crew was infinitely preferable to losing the bow gunner. He can still assist the driver in mechanics etc, but being in the turret enables the gunner to take over the TCs job, while the Bow Gunner takes over as gunner or loader. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 The interesting 1;1 relative spotting should make tank battles quite realstic. How it will work with 1:1 crews remains to be seen. Having radio-contact/shared intel might be achieved. It might get 'tainted' by player 'unit-bouncing'. This is when the player jumps from unit to unit, then back again and intel-reaps all the individual info. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Along with “By Tank into Normandy”, I can recommend “Warriors for the Working Day” (Peter Estob) which follows an RTR tank crew from Normandy (including Goodwood and other engagements) to Germany. Has plenty of detail and colour. BTW: Another good reason for the driver to remain “closed down” is so that the main armament doesn’t crush his head as the turret is traversed. Possibly not as big an issue then as it is now with powered traverse and stab but still a planning issue. Indeed “Warriors for the Working Day” begins with the tank on the range at Aldershot, paused between moves and the commander notices where the gun is. He has a flashback of one of his earlier crewman being trapped in a vehicle in the desert due to the gun’s position and orders the gunner to traverse off. He is pleasantly surprised at the speed of the gunner’s response, even though the gunner gives him a funny look. Add to that the issues of blast and concussion as the main armament is fired as well as from the coax and I think there a fair few good reasons for the “hull creatures” to remain closed down. And what is wrong with reading a book filled with British references for a change compared to American ones? [ March 12, 2005, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: The Soviets followed the same pattern when short of crew members. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Steve, interesting bone regarding bailout and back. Will this also aply to abandoned guns? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I believe there was mention somewhere (amongst the CMx2 threads) about this. The mention being that YES, crews will be able to abandon and re-man guns/support weapons. 90% sure about this. Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Gpig is correct. All crew behavior in CMx2 will be the same at the most basic level. A crew can abandon a HMG, AT Gun, Truck, Tank, whatever... from the code's standpoint there is no inherent difference. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by Sirocco: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: The Soviets followed the same pattern when short of crew members. </font>Really? How many Soviet tank types have bow gunners in the first place? All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Gpig is correct. All crew behavior in CMx2 will be the same at the most basic level. A crew can abandon a HMG, AT Gun, Truck, Tank, whatever... from the code's standpoint there is no inherent difference. Steve Steve- Will we be able to start ATG crews under cover in the beginning of a scenario to ride out bombardments, then have them man their guns, or is this too detailed? -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: The Soviets followed the same pattern when short of crew members. </font>Really? How many Soviet tank types have bow gunners in the first place?</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 And the KV 1 has a bow gun too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by flamingknives: And the KV 1 has a bow gun too. According to Zaloga the third KV1 turret crew member would be the first to go when there was a crew shortage, the bow mg/radio operator the second. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Dale, with the crew being inherently separate from the weapon itself (opposite of CMx1), all things are possible Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securityguard Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 You guys have mentioned that you will attempt to vary each countries usage on fire teams, movement, etc. Because each side didn't have the same assault doctrine. Will you guys be modeling the nusainces of tank crews too? Such as Russians not leaving their tank until they absolutely forced to, or having attatched small squads to their tanks, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Dale, with the crew being inherently separate from the weapon itself (opposite of CMx1), all things are possible Steve Hmmm. I think I may have to compose a special versification for you in the MBT... -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by securityguard: You guys have mentioned that you will attempt to vary each countries usage on fire teams, movement, etc. Because each side didn't have the same assault doctrine. Will you guys be modeling the nusainces of tank crews too? Such as Russians not leaving their tank until they absolutely forced to, or having attatched small squads to their tanks, etc. I'd rather see these "nuances" done with user input in mind rather than national characteristics. For example, see my own listing of tank crew SOPs in the CMAK forum. Perhaps the scenario designer could set such "switches" as how likely the crew is to bail when immobilized/damaged/gun kill etc. Or tie this to crew training rather than nationality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Dale, with the crew being inherently separate from the weapon itself (opposite of CMx1), all things are possible Steve Hmmm. I think I may have to compose a special versification for you in the MBT... -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.