tanks: penetration=kill?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

One thing I would like to see in CMBB is not knowing when you have whacked a tank. In real life I would imagine unless the thing was on fire\crew bailing the tank would continue to hit the other tank until they knew for sure it was dead. Not just get a single penetration and move on.

It would add a bit of realism to the game. And make for a better enviornment IMO.

Gen

Yes yes

I agree completely

the Tac AI is VERY robot like in its ability to get a first shot penetration and KO and move on very quickly to the next target knowing with absolute certianty that the first one is KO'd EVEN when it is not burning and smoking!

Good point

-tom w

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

One issue that muddies the water here with some of the light guns is that with a few of them one 'shot' in CM is actually a burst of Autocannon fire, so you have the chance of a 'penetration' being more than one shell.

Yes, but the hit probablity is already raised to model "one of three shots hits". So the knockout effect must not model "three of three" hit. Right now in CMBO you effectively get both, that is what makes the Flak gun so strong.

And I my opinion, instead of choosing one, we would be better off to take half of both effects.

[Redwolf]

I don't think CMBO should or could model FOW with regards to dead tanks.

If you did, you would shift much of the targetting back into player's hands, which is not what CM is about. You cannot leave the continued shooting on an already hit tank to the TacAI since it is a too touch decision to make. And CM with already targetting manually is half the fun and usually half the success.

[Scipio]

It is right that a lot of 'killed' tanks in CM are abandoned, and not KO.

But just from a 'gut feeling' I have to ask: what is the logic? Imagine a Tank is penetrated by a 2cm shell. The shell has not damaged something, maybe someone is wounded. Why should the crew leave the relative save tank and risk to run over uncovered open ground and getting targeted by each and everyone, except they seriously must fear that the tank will brew up?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

It is right that a lot of 'killed' tanks in CM are abandoned, and not KO.

But just from a 'gut feeling' I have to ask: what is the logic? Imagine a Tank is penetrated by a 2cm shell. The shell has not damaged something, maybe someone is wounded. Why should the crew leave the relative save tank and risk to run over uncovered open ground and getting targeted by each and everyone, except they seriously must fear that the tank will brew up?

In CMBO I don't see tanks abanonded without crew casulty. If all men make it out the tank is KOed.

I don't think you can claim -without further research- that smaller and less energy shells are unconditionally less harmful. A 2cm shell at the "right", not neccessarily very high speed inside the AFV can bounce a lot and be a huge danger for men and equipment.

On the other hand people claim than long-88 shots can go through a Stuart's turret with as few damage as a Flak shell through the side of a halftrack, not leaving much energy. That appears to be nonsense, both from a photo in "South albertas" showing the tank laying on the side, and from the amount of energy left in the tank, which is enough to move it.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio:

It is right that a lot of 'killed' tanks in CM are abandoned, and not KO.

But just from a 'gut feeling' I have to ask: what is the logic? Imagine a Tank is penetrated by a 2cm shell. The shell has not damaged something, maybe someone is wounded. Why should the crew leave the relative save tank and risk to run over uncovered open ground and getting targeted by each and everyone, except they seriously must fear that the tank will brew up?

In CMBO I don't see tanks abanonded without crew casulty. If all men make it out the tank is KOed.

I don't think you can claim -without further research- that smaller and less energy shells are unconditionally less harmful. A 2cm shell at the "right", not neccessarily very high speed inside the AFV can bounce a lot and be a huge danger for men and equipment.

On the other hand people claim than long-88 shots can go through a Stuart's turret with as few damage as a Flak shell through the side of a halftrack, not leaving much energy. That appears to be nonsense, both from a photo in "South albertas" showing the tank laying on the side, and from the amount of energy left in the tank, which is enough to move it.</font>

[rune]

From several books, and veterans accounts, including Death Traps by Cooper, and others. If a tank was penetrated, the crew would jump out immediately. The thinking was, "we got hit that time and survived, wonder what is coming next". I know in the past several people posted veteran accounts, and they all said the same thing. John K. posted an example where tank hit by .50 cal and it retrated for the same thinking.

You are in a steel trap, it is subject to catching fire easily, or exploding. A shell, no matter what caliber just came through and it and spalling just killed two of your crew. Let's see, I can try to move them out of the way, and taking over that position, or I can get out of this trap before it explodes. The crew would bail once over the initial shock. Realistic.

Rune

[sebastian]

Originally posted by lewallen:

Also, the idea proposed by Gen-x87H about not having your tanks know exactly when an enemy tank is dead would, I think, add a lot of realism to the game.

The expierence of enemy units also schouldn't be displayed at all.

[lcm1947]

WOW! Very interesting Kettler. Thanks.

[YankeeDog]

Re tank crews abandoning when it might be safer for them to just sit tight or try to drive out of danger:

As noted, there is plenty of historical evidence that this is what tank crews actually did, so I don't think CM's modelling of this is unrealistic. This may be more because of an instinctive fear reaction than any rational thought that being outside the tank would be safer. The fear of fire and tight enclosed spaces are pretty basic fears. It does seem that tank crews get killed quite often as they bail out in my CM battles, though. Perhaps they don't surrender as often as they should? Tank crews seem awfully willing to try to dash across 50-60m of open ground to the nearest cover while under heavy fire. IMHO, if they knew that the tank was covered by small arms fire, they might jump out of the thing with their hands up.

re Redwolf's comments about multiple shots at possible KOed tanks: I don't see how this would increase manual targetting by players very much. What I am envisioning here is a system where there would be additional possible states for AFVs: In addition to "Abandoned" and "Knocked Out", you could also have "Abandoned?" and "Knocked Out?". If you wanted to be really detailed, I suppose you could also have "Gun Damage?" and "Immobilized?". In some situations (brew up, crew clearly seen jumping out), the tank would go right away to "Knocked Out" or "Abandoned" after being hit. Then the TacAI would immediately switch to another target if one was available. I do believe that the decision to re-target a clearly Abandoned or Knocked Out AFV should always be player-controlled, but that's no different than it is now.

Often, though, after a hit, the Vehicle would go to "Abandoned?" (no activity, but crew not clearly seen leaving the vehicle), or "Knocked Out?" (some evidence of serious damage, but can't be sure). In such cases, the TacAI would fire one or two more rounds into the vehicle to be sure. I suppose if a hit on an AFV took place at the very end of a turn, and the vehicle went to "Abandoned?" or "Knocked Out?", but the TacAI hadn't yet fired off it's 'finishing' rounds, then the player might want to pull the targeting off the AFV and manually target something else, but such action would not come without risk - there would be a significant chance that the information was wrong (just like when you ID an AFV as a "Panther?" now and it turns out to be a PzIV) and the supposedly KOed AFV would come back to life.

If anything, I would be less likely to manually retarget off a questionably killed AFV in a situation like this; I'd be more likely to allow my Tankers to "make him sure", and then move on to the next target.

Admittedly, the TacAI for implementing this might just be too complicated. For example, suppose an 88mm ATG crew with two Shermans in front of it. The ATG hits one Sherman, and the vehicle goes to "Knocked Out?" status, meaning the hit looked good, but the gun crew isn't sure. In the meantime, the other Sherman has clearly spotted the ATG and is swinging it's turret around to bear. Does the ATG crew put another round into the possibly disabled Sherman first (it can do this pretty quickly as range and bearing have already been found), or does it immediately change targeting to try to get the other Sherman before it starts landing HE rounds too close for comfort?

If I was a reasonably experienced commander of an 88mm crew and I saw a clear hit on the first Sheman, I think I'd start to target the other Sherman immediately - I'd probably know that the chances of that hit not causing serious damage were pretty low.

What if it's the crew of 57mm ATG targeting Tigers, though? Here, the chances of a non-killing hit are much higher. Maybe the crew would want to make sure the first one was dead before trying to engage the second.

There's also the issue of how experience plays into all of this. More experienced crews would certainly be better at telling whether or not a vehicle was really KOed or not, but would green crews be more or less likely to keep shooting at a possibly KOed target??

Whatever the case, it sounds like some pretty tricky stuff for the TacAI to model. 'twould be pretty cool tho. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Tomb]

i should point out that john salts table refers to homogenous armour which tends to petal IE peel back where hardend harmour tends to plug IE the metal infront of the round enters the tank "as opposed to peel back.

germans favoured hardened armour which if sloped had a good tendancy to shatter a tungsten or other hardened round , the down side of this is hardend armour could fail disasterously if defeated

i think the bottom line is is better to have hardend thin armour and softer thick armour

the brits also concluded that APHE was useless if you could not penetrate while AP which had better penetration was better, more, if needed, could be fired until a result was achieved.

the clash of british armour with the german armour around Caen produced i believe in about 300 brit tanks lost for 60 german.

a german victory perhaps except the brits took the ground meaning the 60 german losses were permanant and harder to replace than the brits who put all but 40 of the three hundred back into service ..what was 40 tanks to allied production ? a day, a week ?, not much for sure

the germans know how to win battles but the brits know how to win wars.

regards

Tomb

[Redwolf]

As the discussion became obfuscated I have to point out that I don't have a problem with the basic probablity of beging abandoned of a full tank hit by a full tank shell, like Sherman hit by Mk IV.

I gave a list of more subtle things I'd like to have thought put into (prefferably by someone who can change the code ) in my previous post.

[Pacestick]

I get frustrated enough now when the tac AI targets AT teams or flamethrowers when enemy armour is around. I can only imagine the joy I would feel if the AI kept shooting at a KO'd tank "just to make sure" and ignored the other very much alive targets.

I think the decision to target or not to target KO'd tanks would be too tough for the AI IMHO

[Caesar]

If I recall correctly CMBB is going to include much more sophisticated vehicle morale whereas in CMBO it was pretty limited. In CMBO the only choice the TacAI had in panic like situations was to Abandon the vehicle. You may find that with these changes there is a higher chance of the vehicle high tailing it out of there if a non fatal penetration occurs.

On the other hand, in my first ever game against a human I had a Panther take at least 4 (could have been 5) hits from US bazookas (3 of them at around a 100m - I was a little green ) causing penetration, internal armour flaking etc and the tank crew did not abandon This actually caused me to lose a lot of tanks in the future as I concluded the Bazooka was next to useless :mad:

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't think CMBO should or could model FOW with regards to dead tanks.

Unless my memory is decieving me, FOW is modeled for dead tanks in CMBB. I like the idea. It will be interesting to see how it works out.

[JonS]

To expand on John K's excellent post, the following is an extract from Pemberton, A.L. (1951) The development of artillery tactics and equipment, The War Office. p.211

Anti-Tank Developments

As the race between gun and armour continued, a design was proposed for a 32-pr. anti-tank gun, which was originally to have been mounted on both towed and S.P. carriages. Owing, however, to its great weight, the former type of mounting was soon abandoned, and the production of the latter was delayed by the lack of a suitable chassis. This equipment was therefore still in the experimental stage at the end of the war in Europe, and in the subsequent fighting in the Far East it was unnecessary because of the comparatively thin armour of the Japanese A.F.Vs. There were moreover indications that it would ultimately be netter to design improved high velocity shot for the 17-pr. rather than undertake the re-equipment of anti-tank units with a new heavy gun. The “small hole” rather than the “big hole” was in fact to emerge as British anti-tank gun policy in 1945.

In conformity with this policy, the performance of anti-tank ammunition was further improved by the production, in the summer of 1944, of a new device known as “discarding sabot”, or D.S. shot. In this projectile, a tungsten carbide core was enclosed in a light metal casing, or sabot, which separated into segments on the shock of discharge and which was discarded as the projectile left the muzzle of the gun. The armour penetration achieved at normal impact at a range of 1,000 yards was 146mm. with the 6-pr. and 231mm. with the 17-pr. On the other hand, where A.P.C.B.C. could penetrate, it did greater damage inside the tank and was less likely to pass straight through a lightly armoured target. In consequence, both kinds of shot had to be retained in the service; A.P.C.B.C. for use when penetration was certain, and D.S. for special occasions.*

* R.A. Notes No. 22, para. 1277

Emphasis mine.

Regards

JonS

[ June 28, 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[John Kettler]

Steve Zaloga's Osprey book on Russian heavy tanks also addresses the matter of crews bailing out of perfectly functional tanks and then being shot up.

Apparently, nonpenetrating strikes caused the interior paint to smoke a bit via armor heat transfer, which freaked out improperly trained crews, causing them to leap out and be shot, when they could've simply let the ventilators handle the problem. Improved training and higher grade human material solved that problem.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Scipio]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

As noted, there is plenty of historical evidence that this is what tank crews actually did, so I don't think CM's modelling of this is unrealistic. This may be more because of an instinctive fear reaction than any rational thought that being outside the tank would be safer. The fear of fire and tight enclosed spaces are pretty basic fears. It does seem that tank crews get killed quite often as they bail out in my CM battles, though. Perhaps they don't surrender as often as they should? Tank crews seem awfully willing to try to dash across 50-60m of open ground to the nearest cover while under heavy fire. IMHO, if they knew that the tank was covered by small arms fire, they might jump out of the thing with their hands up.

That's a very good point! But that also leads me to a another question : the worth of crews. AFAIK, the crews have the same or only slightly higher value as an infantryman. Why? A tank is a tank, the difference between Conscript and Elite is only the crew. So I think the crews must have a much higher value, maybe even like artillery spotters. (This would, BTW, hinder every halfway intelligent player to missuse them as scouts etc).

Regarding the FOW, I generally don't understand how we can know if an enemy tank is knocked out or just abandoned, except it is absolutly obvious.

Regarding the damage caused by a shells, I think the most important question is : how much energy is left after penetration? This depents of course on many factors, like armor thickness and type, type, wheight and velocity of the shell, angle of penetration, distance etc. I seems to me that this is not modeled.

[Simon Elwen]

A quotation from "Take these Men" by Cyril Joly

which you may find intresting

"It was at Machili , just before we entered the foothills of he Gebel that Templeton failed to spot a small Italian 20mm Anti Tank gun which was dug in on his flank . The first indication he had of its presence was the sharp clang of a hit by its very high velocity shot , a gush of flame and fumes which seemed to pass across the turret , just missing his knees , and a further clash of metal as the shot went out the farther side of the turret . For a moment there was silence . Then from inside he heard the startled horrified voice of his gunner shouting hysterically "For god's sake , sir 'ave a look at Clements . 'E's been 'it good an' proper, an' 'e's spewing blood all over the ******* place" . When Templeton looked he saw the operator spawled on the floor of the turret with blood pouring from a huge hole in his throat. As he watched , the last spasms of life crossed the face of the dying man , and with a croak he died . That had been bad enough , but clearing the mess from the turret had been torture of the worst kind . And since our tanks were then much depleted in numbers he had to go on in the damaged tank , with the holes on each side a constant reminder and warning for some days ."

The unit was using A10's at the time . Templeton was later killed which was attributed to his loss of nerve/morale .

[cmbtengnr]

it seems to me like a lot of people think that when a round penetrates armor it is a bullet that just goes through the armor and lands in the drivers lap. when a round penetrates armor it is pretty much liguified not only that but so is the armor plating that it pushed through. when the round goes in it is like a giant shotgun blast spraying everything with burning hot shards of metal. and i mean everything gets hit. crew, ammo, gun, sights, fuel,you name it as all that shrapnel gets sprayed everywhere and then starts richocheying (sp?) around. thats why almost every penetration is a kill because in real life thats how it is. ask a dat (dumb ass tanker, engineer term for those morons who love driving over our minefeilds and into our tank ditches) they love talking about how carefull they have to be because one round and its all over.

bye

shvetzov

[Scipio]

I wonder if nobody ever tested the effect of different weapons inside of a tank, the interior and especially the crew.