Tank crews are VERY angry

[Achim]

Hello, first, its a GREAT game, i realy love it, good job.

but i though that tank crews are very angry, they bail out pretty fast.

ok, this is a subjektiv opinion (sorry, i am living in germany, my enlgish sucks), but i tested it ..

try this, choose 4 Flak Guns 20 mm (with 4 barrels, they called 20 mm Flackvierling in the german version), than choose the year 1945, take an IS 3 (heaviest soviet tank) AND an elite crew.

put the flak guns on a mountin (high 9) and in a wood, put the IS 3 on o road 300 meters away, and close the hatchets (bottun up, close the doors, i dont know the english order), now fire with the flak guns at the IS 3, after 1 or 2 turns the tank crew bails out (the tank is imobile and is facing the flak guns).

i never sit in a tank and get hit by 20 mm canon fire, but i will never leave a tank with 200 mm steel and a huge gun because some idiots through snowballs at me.

the IS 3 didnt take any damages (only imobile), the gun is ok, the crew is ok (no casulations),

if the tank get hit it say :"hit but no serious damage" (german message: "getroffen aber keine ernsten schäden", sowas in etwa)

but they leave the tank ....

i though that the "bail out algorithem" only counts the hits, and the "damage" of the tank, the caliber of the guns doesnt matters.

i tried it with 50 mm pak guns too (no "tungsten" (called hardkern in german), 5 guns, the crew bailed out after turn 4.

5 pak guns, and 4 flak guns, crew bailed out in turn 2.

this is no flame thread or something, its realy a good game, and the test is very "special" (one tank, no infantrie, 4 flak guns, all guns can target the tank, tank on a street, 300 meter distance, flak in woods, and so on)

did other peoples "feel" the same ?

(tank crews bails out to fast)

[Michael Dorosh]

If the tank was immobilized, I can understand the crew bailing out (this is the case at least in your first example).

[Terence]

I bet the noise of all those rounds hitting the tank would be enough to drive you crazy...

[mike8g]

This simulates the fear of the tank crew of getting hit by something bigger.

In fact you personally have more knowledge than they have:

You KNOW that there are only 20mm Flak guns, they don't. So if their tank is immobilized, they can easily imagine that the enemy will use bigger guns to finish them off or maybe field some Panzervernichtungstrupps.

Schönen Abend noch..

Marcus

[ September 20, 2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: mike8g ]

[Compassion]

20mm AA does some weird things to people. I played a winter game of CMBO not too long ago and had a Churchie Croc lumbering through the snow and the only thing I had for it was a pair of 20mm flack shooters... so they opened up at about 500m and after about 20 hits got lucky and hurt the gun... a couple minutes later the crew bailed with nothing really wrong with the tank itself. PRrobably a safer place to be! But then again, that hammering had to be excruciating on the crew.

[Achim]

@mike8g,Michael Dorosh,Terence:

I love this forum, the answers are good and logical.

a imoblie tank is a dead tank, and the scenario designer "knows" that there are only flak guns, but the crew dont know this.

i try create a scenario where the tank cant get imobile (hull down or something).

(ich wünsche allen noch einen schönen abend)

[Mace]

Originally posted by Achim:

but i will never leave a tank with 200 mm steel and a huge gun because some idiots through snowballs at me.

4.2) the tank is immobilised which makes it an easy target.

xx) as the crew is buttoned up their fields of view are very much restricted, and they don't know what else is out there.

I'd be bailing out as quick I could as well.

Mace

[Tiger]

I've read a historical account of a Soviet tank getting hit non-stop by a single flak 20 cannon (all the Germans had right then). Turns out the crew inside had gone insane from the non-stop reverbrations and at least 2 had shot themselves, the others bailed out as babbling idiots. Imagine being inside of a large bell getting hit by rapid-fire AA and you get the idea....

-john

[LightningWar]

So the IS-3 did make it in

LW

[Achim]

Ok, next test

This time the IS 3 is in hull down position (the tracks cant get hit).

the gun was destroyed, but the crew didnt bail out, the flaks shoot 6 turns.

next test with 50 mm pak, same affect, gun get hit (destroyd) but the crew didnt bail out, the paks fired ...5 guns with 40 shells each ... a lot of shells at the tank, but the crew ignores the fire.

(paniked, after the gun was destroyed)

i though that the crew bails out pretty fast if the tank is imobile and they take another hits.

i changed my opinion, the tank crews are not angry, the only bail out if they are imobile, is this realistic ?

i dont know, i am not a tanker, and i never take gun hits in "my tank"

i read that some of our forum readers are in the army, are there any tankers around here ?

what is your order when your tank get imobile by enemy fire, do u bail out, or do u wait inside your steel beast ?

if this questen sounds silly, sorry i am a zivilist, i never ask this questen myself (what should i do if my tank get imobile by enemy fire).

[Hortlund]

Lets see, IS-3 tank... crew is protected by the thickest armor in the game. They KNOW they are being fired upon by several flakvierlings. They bail out.

To me that is a pretty good indication that something might need a change in the "bail-out-routine"

But you guys are defending that?

You have just watched a tank crew commit suicide for no reason and your line of argument goes along the lines of

"they cant know that there arent any bigger guns out there" (IS-3 remember)

"the tank was immobile" (still safer inside than outside)

"the noise inside must have been horrible" (undoubtedly)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Lets see, IS-3 tank... crew is protected by the thickest armor in the game. They KNOW they are being fired upon by several flakvierlings. They bail out.

To me that is a pretty good indication that something might need a change in the "bail-out-routine"

But you guys are defending that?

You have just watched a tank crew commit suicide for no reason and your line of argument goes along the lines of

"they cant know that there arent any bigger guns out there" (IS-3 remember)

"the tank was immobile" (still safer inside than outside)

"the noise inside must have been horrible" (undoubtedly)

Weren't tank crews under orders to abandon immobilized vehicles, and move themselves to the rear - in order to avoid capture, firstly, and secondly because they were highly trained specialists who were needed to man other tanks? Not to mention the desire to report to higher headquarters about their condition, etc.? Just spitballing here, really, but some stuff to consider. Not "defending" anything, just attempting discussion.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Lets see, IS-3 tank... crew is protected by the thickest armor in the game. They KNOW they are being fired upon by several flakvierlings. They bail out.

To me that is a pretty good indication that something might need a change in the "bail-out-routine"

But you guys are defending that?

You have just watched a tank crew commit suicide for no reason and your line of argument goes along the lines of

"they cant know that there arent any bigger guns out there" (IS-3 remember)

"the tank was immobile" (still safer inside than outside)

"the noise inside must have been horrible" (undoubtedly)

Weren't tank crews under orders to abandon immobilized vehicles, and move themselves to the rear - in order to avoid capture, firstly, and secondly because they were highly trained specialists who were needed to man other tanks? Not to mention the desire to report to higher headquarters about their condition, etc.? Just spitballing here, really, but some stuff to consider. Not "defending" anything, just attempting discussion.</font>

[Abbott]

We were trained, "The engine of a tank is as much of a weapon as the main gun". Bailing out when immobile is done on order from the tank commander depending on the situation of the moment and his orders. WWII crews I am sure had specific orders from their superiors as Michael stated above of which situations to bail on.

[ September 20, 2002, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Commissar]

Considering the Soviets were rather strict on not abandoning equipment unless it was totally rendered helpless, merely losing mobility would not seem enough for a Soviet crew to abandon their tank. To do so prematurely and without "justification" would probably mean a visit from the SMERSH unit and some time in a penal battalion. But then again, the perceived threat of immediate death may override any sense of following the regulations.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

But you guys are defending that?

You have just watched a tank crew commit suicide for no reason and your line of argument goes along the lines of

"they cant know that there arent any bigger guns out there" (IS-3 remember)

"the tank was immobile" (still safer inside than outside)

"the noise inside must have been horrible" (undoubtedly)

As I said before, the field of view for a buttoned down crew is very much restricted.

Thee crew would have no idea if there's a team of infantry with a panzerfaust or panzerschreck stalking them, now would they?

Hence I'm quite happy with the current algorithm modelling this.

Mace

[Hortlund]

I guess we just see things differently.

Although I agree that the field of view from a buttoned tank is very restricted. And true, the crew might suspect that there are German infantry teams stalking the tank.

Personally I fail to see why this would make the crew more eager to abandon their vehicle though...presumably the stalking infantry has other weapons too.

But that is beside the point. To abandon a tank that is under direct fire from a flakvierling = suicide.

If you are sitting in a heavy tank and you are getting shot at by small arms or small calibre guns, you dont jump out unless you *really* have to.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Tiger:

I've read a historical account of a Soviet tank getting hit non-stop by a single flak 20 cannon (all the Germans had right then). Turns out the crew inside had gone insane from the non-stop reverbrations and at least 2 had shot themselves, the others bailed out as babbling idiots. Imagine being inside of a large bell getting hit by rapid-fire AA and you get the idea....

-john

I can produce other accounts where tank crews drove off or abandoned after taking non lethal hits.

But I *really* doubt that any crew would bail out while a flakvierling were firing at the tank. I mean that is beyond stupid...

It is pretty easy to sit around the PC and say "I wouldn't bail out, that would be crazy" but we really aren't going to be able to judge what "we" would do in a similar situation until we've been in that situation and were subjected to the stresses particular to that situation. Perhaps if you were in a tank being hit by shellfire you would be so busy crapping your pants and saying "mommy mommy" that you weren't even capable of thinking logically, let alone doing something as complicated as bailing out!

I'm sure there are historical accounts with tank crews doing all kinds of crazy things when under fire so it seems difficult to critique how accurate the morale model is one way or another. You are attempting to put a rational set of parameters on something that is inherently irrational. Human nature. People just do some wacked out and crazy things when their very survival is at stake. When a Landser gets hit, he can't just reload the game and play another quick battle - he is out permanently.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

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

I've read a historical account of a Soviet tank getting hit non-stop by a single flak 20 cannon (all the Germans had right then). Turns out the crew inside had gone insane from the non-stop reverbrations and at least 2 had shot themselves, the others bailed out as babbling idiots. Imagine being inside of a large bell getting hit by rapid-fire AA and you get the idea....

-john

I can produce other accounts where tank crews drove off or abandoned after taking non lethal hits.

But I *really* doubt that any crew would bail out while a flakvierling were firing at the tank. I mean that is beyond stupid...

It is pretty easy to sit around the PC and say "I wouldn't bail out, that would be crazy" but we really aren't going to be able to judge what "we" would do in a similar situation until we've been in that situation and were subjected to the stresses particular to that situation. Perhaps if you were in a tank being hit by shellfire you would be so busy crapping your pants and saying "mommy mommy" that you weren't even capable of thinking logically, let alone doing something as complicated as bailing out!

I'm sure there are historical accounts with tank crews doing all kinds of crazy things when under fire so it seems difficult to critique how accurate the morale model is one way or another. You are attempting to put a rational set of parameters on something that is inherently irrational. Human nature. People just do some wacked out and crazy things when their very survival is at stake. When a Landser gets hit, he can't just reload the game and play another quick battle - he is out permanently.</font>

[ASL Veteran]

There are some very intense accounts of tanks under fire in the book "Nomonhan: Japan against Russia, 1939." Now I would certainly put Japanese tankers in a different category than … ummm … normal tankers, but I think the accounts are interesting nonetheless.

Though the IJA armored units had generally managed to maintain their formation, a tank from the 1st company had stopped to fire and became lost. Trying to catch up, this tank was hit in the turret by several slugs fired by a Soviet heavy machine gun operating from the flank. The crew compartment heated up as if the tank was on fire, but the armor had not been penetrated, and no casualties were incurred

Heat is something that I never really thought of when considering the effects of non penetrating enemy fire on tanks. There would be a sound factor too as posted earlier in the thread, so even non penetrating hits would increase the crew's discomfort level by quite a bit.

IJA Regulations forbade the abandonment of a tank under fire, even if the machine were knocked out. As platoon leader Koga of the 3rd Regiment always insisted, crewmen must share the fate of their tank, saving their last bullet to commit suicide. Looking back, Irie calls the practice wasteful, as indeed it was in his case: his immobilized tank, now a sitting duck, was hit a dozen times and burned by enemy gunfire. The crew were not allowed to bail out. Consequently, Irie's noncom gunner was killed and the wounded driver was captured.

The Japanese tank crew, staying at their posts to the end! How would you know when such a tank was knocked out if the crew never bails - even when the tank is on fire? Who wouldn't want to command such troops in a Pacific CM? I would also draw attention to the part that says "his immobilized tank, now a sitting duck...."

As for Lieutenant Ito's 2nd Company, the regimental reserve had entered battle on the difficult right wing, between In and Tamaki, where its support was most needed. An antitank or artillery shell penetrated Ito's ammunition compartment behind the driver, exploded, and set the fighting compartment ablaze with yellow flame. Ito was severely burned in the face and limbs. The enlisted gunner's face and hands were also burned, and he was wounded by shell fragments. Flames seared the back of the corporal driver, who was cut by fragments too. The tank's engine stopped and could not be restarted. After fruitless attempts to put out the fire, Ito decided to evacuate the tank. He struggled out of the turret, fainted from pain, and toppled to the ground. The driver managed to drag himself out of his seat, and the gunner painfully revived Ito when he fell on him. Visible to friend and foe because of the flames, Ito's tank drew continued gunfire.

Some things of interest to me in this passage are how long it took the crew to bail out of a burning tank (for those who feel bailing out should always be quick) and the fact that they actually bailed out at all (considering the regulations in the previous passage). To see the gravity of the bailing out at all part, check these passages out,

A sergeant who took off to reconnoiter the situation encountered Lieutenant Niikura's light tank carrying the badly burned Ito. The latter, lifted from the vehicle, apologized to the colonel for the charring of his tank and reported on the wounding of the driver. Tamada responded graciously, lauding Ito and his crew for their fine performance.

(Sniperoo)

Only after the fighting on 6 July did Tamada learn the circumstances attending the loss of Ito's tank. It had vanished by then, only to reappear later in a Soviet photograph showing six exultant Russian soldiers clambering over the vehicle. The problem for the Japanese, as explained earlier, was the practice in the IJA tank corps for crews to meet the same fate as their vehicles. As Tamada tells it, "Somebody came from Japan and apparently went to see General Yasuoka. It was said that I, as the regimental commander, had to assume responsibility for this regrettable episode. The general, however, defended me and reached a generous decision: that cases such as this one could very well occur during close, confused combat." Consequently, Tamada was not obliged to commit suicide or be otherwise disgraced, although the matter troubled him deeply.

The guy bails out of a burning tank and his commander might be forced to commit suicide!? :eek:

[Chad Harrison]

I agree with the above. Elite crew or not, all that noise inside the tank would break the stoutest of hearts.

And more importantly, above all, the Elite crew would know that in reality those guns are just suppresing the tank while something else gets there that can knock it out.

Nor change needed IMO.

Chad

[ASL Veteran]

Oh my! The first two passages I posted above were not connected episodes. Only the last two passages were in any way connected, and even then there is much more material between those passages. I did not realize that those passages could be construed as one continuous episode.

[Achim]

Originally posted by Abbott:

We were trained, "The engine of a tank is as much of a weapon as the main gun". Bailing out when immobile is done on order from the tank commander depending on the situation of the moment and his orders. WWII crews I am sure had specific orders from their superiors as Michael stated above of which situations to bail on.

Abbott u say "We were trained ...", it think u are a tanker, if the armys of the world have the doctrine that the engine is one of the best weopons of a tank than the game engine works perfect.

(the tank can´t move, and its under heavy fire, the crew cant see outside the tank (no information about their environment, the commander dont have any information too)its logical to bail out)

[von Lucke]

A written instruction existed: in any situation, organize a reliable defense of the tank and preserve it for subsequent battles. Only in exceptional circumstances was it permitted to disable the armaments and radios, and if it were possible, blow up the tank and set it on fire. After all this, the crew had a right to move away from the tank.

-- Major Dmitriy Loza, on the subject of a T34 breaking down in enemy territory, 7th Guards Mechanized Corps, Oct 1944.

[ September 21, 2002, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[Nippy]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A written instruction existed: in any situation, organize a reliable defense of the tank and preserve it for subsequent battles. Only in exceptional circumstances was it permitted to disable the armaments and radios, and if it were possible, blow up the tank and set it on fire. After all this, the crew had a right to move away from the tank.

-- Major Dmitriy Loza, on the subject of a T34 breaking down in enemy territory, 7th Guards Mechanized Corps, Oct 1944.</font>