Tank's gun hit question

[wildboar]

Why is it that when a tank suffers a gun hit. It is no longer able to use its machineguns. Even though all of its crewmen are alive.

[Redwolf]

The model chosen is that a coaxial machinegun goes out together with the main gun.

If you have other MGs those continue to work but they are very hard to use since they don't obey to "target" commands and fire ont heir own only occasionally in the case of hull MGs or have very few ammo (flex MGs).

In engine terms, "gun damage" means "everything you could use or choose with the target tool is not available anymore".

[752ndTank]

The model is probably correct, though it may be based on the wrong decision rules.

When a tank was hit, the LAST place the crew wanted to be was inside the vehicle manning the MGs without mobility and without an operational main gun. In that situation, the tank would have lost its effective value as an AFV, and the crew would be highly vulnerable. If a tank was immobilized but not KO'd in combat, standard practice on both sides was to pump another round or two into it to ensure that it was in fact destroyed beyond repair.

The decision to stay in an immobilized tank or abandon it was obviously made by the TC, if he was still able to give the order. Specifically, FM 17-10 (Tactics and Techniques, March 1942) states:

**********

6) Disabled tanks - If the tank is completely immobilized, the tank commander determines whether the crew will continue the fire fight from the tank, repair the tank, fight on foot, or abandon the tank. He must consider the location of the tank as to concealment from hostile observation, and the field of fire obtainable. In the event he decides to fight on foot or abandon his tank, he and the other members of the crew follow the procedure prescribed in FM 17-5.

**********

While technically the crew could stay in the tank and fight with the MGs, the "smart" thing to do in most combat circumstances was to abandon an immobilized tank. Tankers in the MTO were in short supply and they were an expensive commodity to train. As such, they were instructed to get out of a disabled vehicle and fight with the infantry or in another tank until the action was over. Staying inside a tank to man the .30 light MGs, while risking the lives of 5 experienced tankers, was not considered wise.

This may not directly answer your question, but hopefully it adds a little technical and historical perspective.

Bob

http://www.752ndtank.com

[Guest Mike]

Fighting with the infantry does not seem like an optimal strategy for preserving "rare" tank crews!! :eek: :eek:

[752ndTank]

Fighting with the infantry does not seem like an optimal strategy for preserving "rare" tank crews!!

Agree, but in combat the "right" conditions for employing optimal strategies seldom present themselves. There wasn't much of safe option once a tanker was out in the open in the midst of a raging battle, but the chances of survival were better in the field than in a crippled tank that was certain to draw a killing round.

As long as a tanker is under fire, he may as well return fire to provide mutual support to the infantrymen who are trying to protect him. I've intervewed many vets of the 752nd who ended up fighting as infantry for a brief period. As bad an alternative as it was, they felt this approach provided a far better chance of survival than to sit tight in a disabled tank. Plus it was in keeping with their training, which was based on some hard lessons learned by other tankers earlier in the war (particularly at Kasserine).

In the 752nd, 52 tanks were lost, affecting 260 crew members. Casualty analysis indicates that only one man was KIA after abandoning his tank in the midst of a battle. To see his story, go to:

http://www.752ndtank.com/TheRock.html

Bob

http://www.752ndtank.com

[Biochem can be fun]

752ndTank,

Interesting Website. Nice work.

In response to the original post--I've also been frustrated in CM when a tank has had its main gun knocked out and is still capable of fighting with its MGs (the whole crew is fine and the vehicle is mobile).

Redwolf makes a great point about the actual mechanics of the CM game. I'm not sure his response addresses the point of the original post--Why is a tank with a damaged main gun that is still mobile not able to use MGs?

752ndTank begins to address the question. The main gun is hit; the TC has to make a decision whether or not to bail. However, 752ndTank assumes that the tank is immobile. In CM I've had main guns knocked out, the crew fine (maybe shocked for a turn or two), the tank mobile, and still unable to use the MG's. Clearly the decision has been made by the TC to stay in the tank. If your main gun is hit and you can't use your MG, why stay in the tank? I understand that modeling the response of a tank crew's reaction to any kind of a hit is difficult, but this does seem a little strange. If the crew is willing to stay in the tank with no means of fighting, doesn't that seem kind of weird? Of course, at the CM level, we can ignore the idea that they just want to save the tank for a later battle. If that were the case, wouldn't they reverse, find cover, and look for the fastest way of the map?

Speaking of the difficulties of modeling a tank crews response to getting hit: In the book "Death traps", Cooper describes a situation in which a sherman was able to cause a Tiger crew to abandon their tank by a direct hit with a smoke round. You'll never see that in CM. How can you model the chaos and fear that drives a TC's decisions?

Cheers,

J

[Michael Emrys]

I gather from my own readings that a tank with an inoperable main gun but still mobile would in most cases try to withdraw off the battlefield and seek repairs. But again, that would depend on the tactical situation, the experience and mood of the crew, etc.

Michael

[Biochem can be fun]

Michael stated in a concise manner what I was trying to express in my earlier post. I guess the question still remains: Is this a modeling error in the CM engine?

J

[Bogdan]

Originally posted by Biochem can be fun:

In the book "Death traps", Cooper describes a situation in which a sherman was able to cause a Tiger crew to abandon their tank by a direct hit with a smoke round.

I've read somewhere that american M4 tank commanders fired at Panthers with phosphorus round, in order to blind the optic devices. Is that the same procedure you've just described ? German crews often bailed out then, due to fighting incapacity of the main gun.

Maybe have a look at Vanguard "Lorraine 1944" campaign serie...

[rune]

Since "gun damage" can be anything from a turret stuck, a turret ring hit, a barrel hit, to optics being knocked out, it is quite realistic to not have the co-ax firing.

The hull mg will still fire. The chance of a crew bailout does depend on all of the stuff discussed above.

Rune

[Sergei]

From what I've read, when a tank suffered gun damage it then drove off right away to have it fixed. First of all, because it was important to fix it ASAP & get back to service, secondly because, well, in combat situations you don't need to be persuaded very hard to leave the combat if your main weapon was broken. What I'm saying is that players are acting very gameyly when they just keep those damaged tanks in front, like using crews for spotting. This is not in response to the question here, btw.

Maybe having a gun damage should cost some points (like 10% of AFV value) which would be given back if the AFV exited alive...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Maybe having a gun damage should cost some points (like 10% of AFV value) which would be given back if the AFV exited alive...

Not a bad idea, but I would modify it a little along thise lines: gun damage is worth 30% of the vehicle's value but you get 20% back by successfully withdrawing it off the map. (It still has to go into the shop for a while; that ought to be worth some points.)

Michael

[Kilroy Lurking]

Maybe having a gun damage should cost some points (like 10% of AFV value) which would be given back if the AFV exited alive...

Now there's a good idea! Also crew members from abandond AFV's - how about "reporting" to Co. Hq.?(ie. In cmd. radius.)

Whilest on the subject of gun damage, I have found that the chances (seem ) to be quite high of a quick firing light cannon targeting a tank and getting "gun damage" even though it has zero kill probability and IMHO in real life would never engage such a target unless forced to.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Maybe having a gun damage should cost some points (like 10% of AFV value) which would be given back if the AFV exited alive...

AFVs exited in ops are gone forever, but without a points loss. If they remain on map, they might get some repair between battles - or get abandoned and you pay the points.

They should get repaired and fielded again with a much higher probability if they exited the map (or got parked close to the map edge).

Gruß

Joachim

[Steve McClaire]

Originally posted by Bogdan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Biochem can be fun:

In the book "Death traps", Cooper describes a situation in which a sherman was able to cause a Tiger crew to abandon their tank by a direct hit with a smoke round...

I've read somewhere that american M4 tank commanders fired at Panthers with phosphorus round, in order to blind the optic devices. Is that the same procedure you've just described? German crews often bailed out then, due to fighting incapacity of the main gun.</font>

[Rabidbvr]

Hello one and all...

Here is a little Q for you all the grant and the lee i have used both in game... but... they have two guns hull mounted and turret plus more mgs than you can shake a stick at... would the same still be true.. ie bail at the loss of a gun... i have not seen this as of yet in any game i have played... and if the crew bid bail you have a small army to use...

happy hunting...