Hans Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Started reading this book and was wondering what others thought of it. One thing I noticed was the mention of the Brits use of captured Italian tanks and the fact that getting your turret jammed seemed more common than I would have thought. I wonder why this isn't a CM damage possibility? I noticed also several photos (178) of AP rounds thru tank gun barrels. Okay ballistic guys what would be the effect of that on gun when it fired next? Besides the run hitting the bent metal on the way out! Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Depends where along the barrel it is. If its at the end of the barrel, and the round has neared muzzle velocity, the round would 'penetrate' the obstruction. If near the front of the barrel (close to breach), before the round has accelerated (and pressure is extremely high), there the chance of a burst barrel or over extended recoil damage. Barrels are not as hard as armor. modern barrels actually are designed to bulge and restore shape. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Originally posted by Hans: Started reading this book and was wondering what others thought of it. One thing I noticed was the mention of the Brits use of captured Italian tanks and the fact that getting your turret jammed seemed more common than I would have thought. I wonder why this isn't a CM damage possibility? I noticed also several photos (178) of AP rounds thru tank gun barrels. Okay ballistic guys what would be the effect of that on gun when it fired next? Besides the run hitting the bent metal on the way out! Thanks Didn't you know, gun damage happens way too frequently in CM. Just kidding. Once a month someone brings up that they think gun damage, which includes turret jams, happens far more in CM than in real life. I don't think anyone has brought more to the argument than anecdotes and conjecture, which also happens way more frequently in CM than in real life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 " ...they think gun damage, which includes turret jams, happens far more in CM than in real life." Of course EVERYTHING in CM happens more often than in real life! I suspect the average CM gamer destroys more Panther tanks in the course of a month that were manufactured during the whole Panther production run. This is the first mention I've heard of this Jentz title. I'm off to the Amazon right now! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yapma Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 i doubt a broken gun could be reasonably construed to encompass a stuck turret. just because the turret wont move, doesnt mean the gun wont fire, unless you know something about tanks that i dont. btw, one of the few things i like better about steel panthers than CM is the variety of ways that a tank can be damaged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumbling Grognard Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Originally posted by yapma: i doubt a broken gun could be reasonably construed to encompass a stuck turret. just because the turret wont move, doesnt mean the gun wont fire, unless you know something about tanks that i dont.I guess I do, because it would. If the turret will not rotate (a very common breakdown) how are you going to aim the main gun worth a crap in combat? 'You' are assuming that the turret jams facing strait ahead, not a good assumption. And even if so, tanks generally do not have 'independent' means of laterally moving the main gun other than the turret itself. I.E. a tank with a jammed turret is 'not' the same as an assualt gun that has the ability to move the main gun left and right to make fine adjustments for aim. So, realistically, yes the main gun is out of action and any crew with a pair of functioning brain cells would be hauling ass to the rear ASAP. btw, one of the few things i like better about steel panthers than CM is the variety of ways that a tank can be damaged. Oh yeah. Battlefront gave up long ago trying to make CM as realistic as Steel Panthers. Maybe Battlefront can strive for that in CMII? GG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted January 17, 2004 Author Share Posted January 17, 2004 Perhaps using the damage marker of "jammed turret" might be appropriate? For CM2 of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yapma Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 GG: although your moniker suggests you go out of your way to do so, try not to be such a turd. during most scenarios, there comes a time towards the end of the battle when one side or the other has lost its AT capability (perhaps you find this unrealistic??). Aiming the gun by rotating the hull is more than sufficient. You really think a smart tanker would flee to the rear in this situation? and, like it or not, Steel Panthers is one of the seminal games in the short history of computer wargames. You are goofy if you think tanks in battle sustained only two types of possible damage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Originally posted by yapma: during most scenarios, there comes a time towards the end of the battle when one side or the other has lost its AT capability (perhaps you find this unrealistic??). Aiming the gun by rotating the hull is more than sufficient. You really think a smart tanker would flee to the rear in this situation?You are mixing up scenarios and reality. IRL tankers would not know that the battle has only 5 turns variable to run, and that the point values already destroyed mean that it is unlikely that there are anymore ATGs in the enemy line-up. A turret ring hit is a disabling hit. Smart tankers would go back to their Coy HQ and get the fitters to work on it. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are welcome to post it here. Please make sure you indicate whether you talk about reality, your personal belief of what tankers would do, or your experiences in a computer game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Crikey, second of three. [ January 17, 2004, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Arrrrgggghhhhhh [ January 17, 2004, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 [David Attiborough voice]And here we have, approaching us cautiously through the undergrowth, the rare and seldom seen Triple Post. Big game hunters and international smugglers would pay hundreds to be able to add such a fine specimen to their collection, but we will just photograph this one, and leave it about it's business.[/David Attingborough voice] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Curse of the tiple post. BLAM BLAM. There, I put it out of its misery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 [David Attiborough voice]And here we have, approaching us cautiously through the undergrowth, the rare and seldom seen Triple Post. Big game hunters and international smugglers would pay hundreds to be able to add such a fine specimen to their collection, but we will just photograph this one, and leave it about it's business.[/David Attingborough voice] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noba Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Originally posted by Andreas: Curse of the tiple post. BLAM BLAM. There, I put it out of its misery. Shame about the spelling mistake.............. (Not edited in ANY way) Noba. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by yapma: during most scenarios, there comes a time towards the end of the battle when one side or the other has lost its AT capability (perhaps you find this unrealistic??). Aiming the gun by rotating the hull is more than sufficient. You really think a smart tanker would flee to the rear in this situation?You are mixing up scenarios and reality. IRL tankers would not know that the battle has only 5 turns variable to run, and that the point values already destroyed mean that it is unlikely that there are anymore ATGs in the enemy line-up. A turret ring hit is a disabling hit. Smart tankers would go back to their Coy HQ and get the fitters to work on it. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are welcome to post it here. Please make sure you indicate whether you talk about reality, your personal belief of what tankers would do, or your experiences in a computer game. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Originally posted by Sirocco: You have a point, but in that case wouldn't it be more representative if the crew abandoned the tank? If the damage is to the turret ring, and not the gun itself, it makes no sense to have the tank on the map, with the crew in good order, yet without the option to fire the main gun. I can accept it as simply a limitation of the game engine, but I would hope more varieties of damage occur in the engine re-write. I also hope for more variety of damage to tanks, and the ability to specify target areas to e.g. inflict such damage with inferior guns. If one of my tanks has gun damage I usually run it off the map, or at least into a protected position at the rear, to avoid losing it. Up to the individual player, I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Originally posted by Andreas: I also hope for more variety of damage to tanks, and the ability to specify target areas to e.g. inflict such damage with inferior guns. If one of my tanks has gun damage I usually run it off the map, or at least into a protected position at the rear, to avoid losing it. Up to the individual player, I think. [/QB] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 I will use gun damaged tanks in the pack if I am advancing to try to get the AT gunners to fire at a tank that is no threat to them. I will also use the gun damaged tank to control an objective area. I use crews of abandoned tanks for objective control as well. Panther Commander [/QB]I'm glad I don't work for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Originally posted by thewood: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I will use gun damaged tanks in the pack if I am advancing to try to get the AT gunners to fire at a tank that is no threat to them. I will also use the gun damaged tank to control an objective area. I use crews of abandoned tanks for objective control as well. Panther Commander I'm glad I don't work for you. [/QB]</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 So PC, your a gamey player... I'll be sure not to play you in PBEM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Originally posted by Hans: Started reading this book and was wondering what others thought of it. One thing I noticed was the mention of the Brits use of captured Italian tanks and the fact that getting your turret jammed seemed more common than I would have thought. I wonder why this isn't a CM damage possibility? I noticed also several photos (178) of AP rounds thru tank gun barrels. Okay ballistic guys what would be the effect of that on gun when it fired next? Besides the run hitting the bent metal on the way out! Thanks One thing would be a major change in the ballistics of the round both from hitting the new obstruction and the venting of gas pressure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yapma Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by yapma: during most scenarios, there comes a time towards the end of the battle when one side or the other has lost its AT capability (perhaps you find this unrealistic??). Aiming the gun by rotating the hull is more than sufficient. You really think a smart tanker would flee to the rear in this situation?You are mixing up scenarios and reality. IRL tankers would not know that the battle has only 5 turns variable to run, and that the point values already destroyed mean that it is unlikely that there are anymore ATGs in the enemy line-up. A turret ring hit is a disabling hit. Smart tankers would go back to their Coy HQ and get the fitters to work on it. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are welcome to post it here. Please make sure you indicate whether you talk about reality, your personal belief of what tankers would do, or your experiences in a computer game. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Originally posted by yapma: Andreas, thanks for your post, but I think you are confusing operational level simulation (take the tank to the rear for repairs, and send up the reserves) with the company/batallion level that is simulated by CM.I have read a lot of books on this level of combat, and I can assure you I am not confusing anything. Originally posted by yapma: I've read only perhaps a dozen or so books on warfare, but it's pretty clear to me that one of the essential principles of any any effective army is: don't abandon your buddies when you can help to keep them alive. i am certain we have all read accounts of damaged tanks staying and fighting on the battlefield.Yes, and that is what medals were given out for, because it is not normal and expected. The essential principle in all this is to stay alive. Since you are unlikely to be a big help when your tank is semi-functional, at best, you are unlikely to stick around. But feel free to detail the accounts you have come across. Originally posted by yapma: imagine a company assault on a defended hill. if the tank with the jammed turret took off, leaving the infantry to assault the machine gun nest without HE support, my guess is the grunts would be pretty pissed off. Happened all the time. I am just reading a book on the Huertgen fighting (A dark and bloody ground), and the tankers did just that. Constantly. They did not really care if the infantry did not like them anymore, or were pissed off and showed their teeth. Gantter's 'Roll me over', a 1st person account by a GI in NWE tells the same story. The same for e.g. an assault by 101. Jaegerdivision during Fridericus, in 1942. Stugs that were detailed to help the assault encounter a minefield. Stug battery commander refuses to continue to advance, infantry has to go alone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 This is indeed an extreemly common occurance. Armor commanders often give a variety of reasons why they don't want to get their machines dirty and leave us poor grunts to shoulder the load. There were several instances during the Bulge of U.S. tanks refusing to engage the Germans and falling back, leaving the infantry to face the Panzers alone. It is interesting to note though that most of these incidents occured with the independent tank battalions rather than the armored divisions. 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.