Self defense crew weapon... AGAIN !

[Darkmath]

How much is the FP value of a crew personal weapon? (I saw it is less than the FP value of a rifle (6,5) but I don't know the exact value)

In previous posts, I concluded that support teams rarely have SMG.

But TO&Es show that some AFV were equipped with an SMG.

What was the purpose of this secondary weapon, given that crews usually escape from their AFV in a matter of seconds so that they could not bear with them a cumbersome SMG?

[David I]

Submachine guns were assigned to AFVs for Security Purposes. "Hans you stand guard while the rest of us put this track back on. Again!".

Etc. Not so that they can come out, guns blazing, when their tank gets KO'ed.

DavidI

[jBrereton]

Aye, exactly. Usually it was the gunner, IIRC, who had an SMG or carbine for this purpose, and I know that at the very least, the Finns made their own carbine SMG, the Pansaari-Suomi (at least I think that was the name) for this purpose.

[Other Means]

Crew defence weapons are short changed purpose, to stop ahistoric use of them - i.e. using bailed crews as recon assets.

It's not meant to be historically accurate.

[Darkmath]

Anyway, when you have to bail out a burning vehicle, every seconds is important.

So I can't imagine a tank commander saying

"Davis, how the hell have you forgot the Thompson SMG?

-I have srounged the bow machinegun with its 3000 ammunitions, sir and...

[The Tiger then fired with its main gun, killing everybody but the tank commander]

-OMFG, I CAN'T MOVE WITH THAT MG NOW! Try to unjam that MG, you Fritz bastard! FIRE AT WILL!

[Kamikaze with scorched earth tactic mode turn on]

Panzerschreck team firing with its self defense weapon

[Kamikaze mode turn off. Use god mode next time ]

Anyway, what is the exact FP value of self defense crew weapon?

[Baron von Beergut]

I think as has been mentioned, the decision was made to keep players from using the crews as an extra infantry unit once bailed. Besides, it would mean too many variables to include extra stuff: One could reason a mobility abandon could take the SMG and an MG. But if in immenent danger of death they may not bother while scurrying for cover. I was in a tank battalion in Korea many years back with the old M48A5 tank and it was common practice in that crappy terrain for tank units to take one man from each tank armed with a grease gun and grenades to do recons and security poking over a hill, woods, etc in effect supplying their own infantry.

In game terms this just opens a can of worms. It gets in to the issue of weather or not we players should be allowed to voluntarily abandon and recrew tanks and heavy weapons. Why can't troops scavenge friendly and enemy weapons from the battlefield when going through terrain occupied by destroyed units, why can't escaped captured units reequip, etc

[Wicky]

In CMBO it was possible, as I did once upon a time ago, to have 5 knocked out tank crews form up into an ad hoc squad to attack and gain revenge on the anti-tank gun that had been their misfortune to keep on meeting during my learning curve in the road out of the woods.

For CM-BB/BAK crews out of shot up AFVs have been rightly emasculated to render them more hapless in FP, spotting capabilities. etc.

[coe]

one could have had it such that there is a random chance that one of the crew might have a submachine gun - though a low probability of it...either way, that the crew is valuable points should discourage people not to use them as regular infantry.

Conan

[coe]

actually perhaps you could have it if the abandonment was due to immobilization or something like that - that the crew be rather well armed.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Regarding the FP points of crews I believe that in CM they are considered to be armed with pistols ergo their FP is what normal pistol rates are for the same quality troops, like in HQ units.

That is why their rates are less than rifles, because they arn't armed with rifles, but pistols.

Weapon crews do occationally use them at close range enemy even while they are still serving their piece, possibly discounting the No.1 gunner from the total number of pistols calculated as firing, I'm assuming, although I've no idea for sure.

I don't absolutely know for sure but the still weapon manning crews will fire their pistols at approaching ememy troops when they reach either half way or the final quarter the why under their pistols maximum range. It is not some thing that I have specifically tested but I remember figuring it out (if it is actually true) playing a game a long time ago. An anti-tank gun crew, the gun of which remained pointed elsewhere, pistol shot upon some very close enemy infantry, and it was quite a few units, not just one but a few that used the same approach route. I certainly took notice of who had made the fire lines and I realised it was them and only under a certain range, like they had a self inposed covered arc. The crew servived the battle still serving their gun at the end.

PS I nominated them all for medals of course! :cool:

[coe]

actually I was thinking, after a gun gets knocked out it (not a vehicle) the crew should pretty much be fully armed (whoever they are). It isn't gamey to use them as infantry...however since they are specialists...the price for losing them in combat should be high (i.e. the final tallies/score).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

Anyway, when you have to bail out a burning vehicle, every seconds is important.

So I can't imagine a tank commander saying

"Davis, how the hell have you forgot the Thompson SMG?

-I have srounged the bow machinegun with its 3000 ammunitions, sir and...

Don't forget that tank crews were trained specialists - and notwithstanding the normal effects of fear and confusion, they received training in how to bail out of a tank. They did drills and they practiced it. Probably not as often as they should - but there was a procedure.

www.canadiansoldiers.com article on Tank Standing Orders for Cdn crews in Italy:

When a tank is abandoned as a flamer the crew commander will be responsible for releasing the emergency fire extinguishers. At all other times the crew commander will ensure that the following drill is carried out -

(a) The gunner will remove the striker case and spare striker case of the 75mm and the bolts of the Browning

( The operator will put the set off net and remove the six point connector

© The bow gunner will remove the bolt and spare bolt from his Browning

(d) All personnel will take personal weapons with them. Stores removed from the tank will be turned over to the Squadron Quartermaster Sergeant at the first opportunity.

It seems a bit silly, but armies do drills for a reason - and the crew commander was held responsible that these drills were carried out. I doubt there was much confusion about who took which weapon in any half-way decently trained crew.

In any event, the bolts for the guns were taken, to render them useless to the enemy should they be captured. Should the tank be recovered, well, you (or rather, the REME boys at the LAD) put the bolts back in. Pulling a Browning with no sights and no ground mount off a tank and trying to squeeze through a tiny overhead hatch with ammunition belts draped over one's chest like a bandito kind of defies the imagination. What would you do with the thing once you had it on the ground? No mount and only a hot barrel to hold up a 20-something pound machine gun and fire from the hip? Only Sergeant Rock's machine gunner Bulldozer would try - and he used a water cooled Browning anyway. And Rock carried belts of .50s that didn't even fit into it.

[ January 01, 2007, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Baron von Beergut:

In game terms this just opens a can of worms. It gets in to the issue of whether or not we players should be allowed to voluntarily abandon and recrew tanks and heavy weapons.

No can, no worms. This capability will be in the CMX2 engine, apparently, IIRC.

Well it should; as a tank crewman, didn't you ever do a recce on foot?

[MikeyD]

You see on Shermans, Stuarts and Greyhounds those little mg tripods mounted to the hulls. They're too small for a big .50 cal but fit a coax .30 cal nicely. The concept behind dismounting the mgs and including small arms in the turret is that sometimes the fight has to press forward beyond where your tank can go.

I recall one old Vietnam war anecdote where a helicopter pilot spots a group of friendly ARVN soldiers in the middle of a firefight. Looking closer he spots a single tall white guy wearing nothing but shorts & a helmet and carrying a carbine. "Must be a dismounted tanker" he concludes.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

You see on Shermans, Stuarts and Greyhounds those little mg tripods mounted to the hulls.

eh? Not in the Commonwealth at any rate. You sure about the US use of dismounted Brownings? You sure you're not thinking of the M113? In Germany in the 1970s, the .50 was a section weapon in the Canadian Army and was employed dismounted, I think the US did the same. I've not heard of Sherman crews in the Second World War every carrying tripods for the Brownings nor employing them as infantry.

[John Kettler]

Michael Dorosh,

Okay, I'll bite. What's a Homolite? Definitely never encountered the term before. A most interesting document!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Gpig]

I believe the Homolite was the small generator motor inside the turret of the Sherman. It was not very popular, from what I recall reading in the South Alberta Regiment history.

I also recall (in that same history) that some .50 Brownings (I think) were removed from the command tanks and passed down to the infantry during the battle for that town on the Dives river . . . I do not recall how they fashioned tripods for them.

Gpig

[MikeyD]

In reply to "eh?"

Haven't you noticed all those 'M2' designated mg tripods strapped to the left-rear hulls of Staghounds, the front fenders of M3 HTs and the rear extensions of M2 HTs? Also as 'official' stowage items on Stuarts and Shermans? Anyone who's built a Sherman tank model would recoginize that item. Basically, if a vehicle carried a .30 cal mg there would be a spot designated for including a tripod too. In some cases a bigger tripod would be brought along with the .50 cal too, though this took up more space than some vehicles could easily handle.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

[QB] In reply to "eh?"

Haven't you noticed all those 'M2' designated mg tripods strapped to the left-rear hulls of Staghounds, the front fenders of M3 HTs and the rear extensions of M2 HTs?

How is that relevant to a tank crew bailing out?

Also as 'official' stowage items on Stuarts and Shermans? Anyone who's built a Sherman tank model would recoginize that item. Basically, if a vehicle carried a .30 cal mg there would be a spot designated for including a tripod too. In some cases a bigger tripod would be brought along with the .50 cal too, though this took up more space than some vehicles could easily handle.

Not on CW Shermans. Most didn't even have a .50, and as pointed out above, the crew drill was to disable the BMG, not try to bale out with it.

Even if US tanks carried a tripod,would crew bail out drills include removing the bow or coax guns and trying to remove them through the hatches as they jumped from a hit (possibly burning) tank? Not to mention detaching the tripod and wrestling ammo boxes out through the same hull hatches? Those things were damn small to begin with - moving ammo from inside the tank to out was probably a two man job. You can't go out the hatch at the same time as your Browning - though I guess you could throw it out if you were desperate.

[MikeyD]

I didn't think this thread was for bailed crews only (which rather implies blind, burned and bleeding tankers) but for crew use of vehicle-supplied weapons when outside of the vehicle. What do they use the turret-stowed Thompson for, what do they use the showed mg mounts for? I suspect if your TC is sprawled headless beside you and covering you with blood, and smoke is filling the fighting compartment your first thought is not going to be unclipping that Grease Gun from the far wall.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I didn't think this thread was for bailed crews only (which rather implies blind, burned and bleeding tankers)

There are no other kind of vehicle crews in CM. *shrug*

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I suspect if your TC is sprawled headless beside you and covering you with blood, and smoke is filling the fighting compartment your first thought is not going to be unclipping that Grease Gun from the far wall.

As pointed out above, the whole reason you do bail out drills in the first place is so that it IS the first thing you think about. How successful that worked out in practice is, of course, subject to individual variables.

[Darkmath]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

Regarding the FP points of crews I believe that in CM they are considered to be armed with pistols ergo their FP is what normal pistol rates are for the same quality troops, like in HQ units.

That is why their rates are less than rifles, because they arn't armed with rifles, but pistols.

So they are armed with pistol? That represents more FP value per weapon than a rifle at short range, cool.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

So they are armed with pistol? That represents more FP value per weapon than a rifle at short range, cool.

O'h yeah, they are too, I should have said that their maximum ranges are shorter and less effective at range than if they were armed with rifles.

OTOH all this talk about weapons and tank crews carrying rifles/carbines, SMGs and having provisions to field mount their detatched and retracted MGs has got me thinking about what the crews really needed them for: sentry duty.

Cirtainly they may not have taken the trouble to have removed tank MGs to perform this task, (while also rendering their tank less combat ready in the process) although they might have done so for a broken down or bogged fighting machine to secure it while they waited for recovery or repairs to be carried out, even if they had to do that them selves!

I've read a few AFVs crewman memoirs and some of them relate about pulling security and performing sentinal duty usually with rifles/carbines & SMGs, definately not with pistols or dismounted MGs to be sure. The crews would not have been able to have rested, eaten nor especially slept if they didn't feel safe in their vehicles or billetted in some town or village at night if they felt volnerable to having their throats cut by partisans or if raided by commandos, etc. It stands to reason that weapons crews would have done much the same, I should think.

[John Kettler]

It's not that they're just armed with pistols, but pistols with Low ammo setting and a morale hit, too. The intention was to remove the potential for offensive action. That said, in the CMBO days, I did have one unhorsed tank crew, acting on its own volition, charge and destroy the offending bazooka team.

Pistols can be deadly, speaking from the perspective of someone whose Italian officer slew his British counterpart with a Glisenti during a vicious battle to hold a trench, this during ROW IV.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Darkmath]

Maybe the officer had an akimbo skill which allows him to hold two handguns at the same time? With bullet time ability of course.

I can't wait for dual wield SMG or sawn off shotgun .