Tank crews are VERY angry

[TP17]

With regard to bail outs, I'm sure I read a bit in the biography of Piper, that he saw Russian crews bail out without even being hit. Just the thought of facing a Tiger made them ' jump ship'

so to speak

[KNac]

I think that the more instintive action (and logical action!) would be to bail out after the tank inmobilized.

Any tank crew with a minimal IQ and minimal training/experience would know that the next the enemy is going to do is getting something heavier to destroy it, and it will happen. So getting out of the damned tank will be the best option in most of cases, w/o a minimal info about the situation.

Standing in the tank is more suicidal because you are gonna die in the 90% of the cases. However using the tank as a pillbox happened (damnit there are stories about KV-1 delaying full divisions in early Barbarossa), but it isn´t, by far, the most common situation.

Well, that's my opinion.

[Krazy Canuck]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

[QB]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?

I cannot speak to Axis or Russian tank doctrin, but I can tell you that in the Canadian ranks the last place they wanted to be in was a disabled tank.

My father spent 1942-'45 overseas in transport, his lifelong buddy, who was a tank driver, made it 3 months in France before his tank got hit, but he lived through it. He was burned completely, a real mess, but he survived and got shipped home, where he spent the rest of his life in and out of Vet rehab clinics until he eventually commited suicide.

Around our home while growing up, there was never any war stories, unless, a couple of fathers war buddies showed up(usually the tank driver above) with a couple bottles of rum, and late at night you could here the stories. The ones I remember most involved tanks and the reasons why no-one wanted to be even near them. You may have been in a moving pillbox, but....it was, to those guys, nothing more than a moving bomb. It seems their greatest fear was the fire. I'm sure this fear was not exclusive to the Canadians!

Krazy

[kevsharr]

I was in the army back in '74 on tanks and our motto was "Shoot-move and communicate"if you lost any of these attributes you were effectivly out of the action.Sitting in a immobilized tank on a modern battlefield{ie.WWII to present}for any period of time was not conducive to a long lifespan

[ASL Veteran]

So ya think that non penetrating hits on a tank are just like a walk in the park? Here is an account of a Tiger crew in Russia from "Panzertruppen Vol 2",

On 10 and 11 February 1943 in an attack on the collective farm west of Sserernikowo, Kampfgruppe Sander faced greatly superior forces. The Tigers in the lead platoon drew most of the enemy fire on themselves. The fire came mostly from the right flank and the front from tanks, antitank guns, and infantry with anti tank rifles, all opening fire at the longest range possible.

At the beginning of the attack, my Tiger was hit on the front of the superstructure by a 7.62cm anti tank gun. The track links, which had been fastened to the superstructure front plate by a steel bar, were shot away. We had heard a dull clang and felt a slight jolt inside the Tiger. At the same time, we observed many near misses striking the ground to the front and the side of the Tiger.

Shortly thereafter, I received a hit on the commander's cupola from a 4.5cm anti tank gun. The brackets holding the glass vision block flew off. The block became welded tight but visibility was eliminated by the impact of the shell fragments. A second hit on the cupola knocked brackets loose from the turret ceiling. At the same time, a heat wave and a cloud of acrid smoke enveloped the crew. Two hits from 4.5cm anti tank shells and 15 hits from anti tank rounds were counted on the cupola after the battle.

The loader's hatch, somewhat stuck and therefore about half open, received several hits from anti tank rifles which knocked some brackets off. Other rounds striking the hatch jammed the hinges so that it could be opened only with the aid of a wrecking bar after the battle. The enemy bathed the Tiger with machine gun fire on both days. The smoke dischargers mounted on the turret side were riddled, setting them off. This smoke filtering into the crew compartment became so thick and strong that for a short time the crew couldn't function.

The closer the Tiger approached the collective farm, the greater the intensity of the enemy defensive fire. Each hit on the Tiger was accompanied by a sharp clang, a slight jolt, acrid clouds of smoke, a shimmering yellow flash, and a detonation. The nerves of the crew were stretched thin. We paid no attention to hunger, thirst, or time. Even though the attack lasted over 6 hours, the crew thought that only a short time had elapsed at the time.

After another 7.62cm anti tank shell struck the gun mantle, the brackets holding the gun snapped, the recoil cylinder began losing fluid, and the gun remained at full recoil. The shaking caused by additional hits damaged the radio, a gas tube, and the gear lever by the driver. The engine caught fire when the shield protecting the exhaust muffler was shot away, but the fire was rapidly extinguished. An explosive charge thrown on top of the Tiger from the side was sensed as a dull explosion accompanied by heat and smoke enveloping the Tiger and the crew.

Seems like just getting hit at all, even by non penetrating hits, is a very nerve wracking and intense experience ... not at all like a Sunday drive on a beautiful autumn day.

[Ruthless]

Some food for thought from a non-grog (who also does not yet own CMBB):

(1)The Tiger crew in the above story did not (apparently) abondon their tank when under small-caliber AT fire (even for 6 hours+)

(2)Some crews probably would choose to fight it out in the tank at least longer than a typical CM exchange; that is, some tank crews bail in a matter of minutes, all bailing crews are observed within the game time limits, which is what? An hour? I think SOME tank crews would probably tough it out that long or longer, depending on experience, damage received, type of attack, support units, what they THINK is shooting at them, etc...as well as (in the game) a good sprinkling of randomness.

This is based on speculation, of course, but I think it is sensible.

(3)A good deal of AAR's would be required to try to put some sense into "how often" a tank crew under small-caliber AT fire would bail (immobilized or otherwise.)

Bottom line: I think what someone else said is true about it being difficult to predict human response to known/unknown danger in combat. However, if "Elite" crews can't tell that they are being attacked by a weapon that can't have a serious chance of penetrating them, and they are attacking, and they are immobilized, I think they should probably not bail immediately, depending on how the rest of the battle is going. Obviously, a better weapon may be stalking them, too, once immobilized, especially; but, if they are leading the spearhead of an attack and they KNOW something is shooting at them that will try to kill them if they get out, that seems kind of silly for an "elite" crew to bail, human nature should be for the more experienced crew to have more discipline and knowledge to stay inside (at least for awhile.)

My instinct is that if a tank is immobilized, it should be a bit random as to whether the crew stays to fight it out or if they bail.

However, since I don't have the game yet, I can't really comment if they have modelled this correctly/to my satisfaction (which are, of course, one and the same!)

Just my two cents.

[WWB]

How does one become elite? Mainly by extended combat experience. Meaning they have good instincts for when it is a good idea to hold em, fold em, walk away and run. You dont make it that long without self preservational instincts.

As for tanks as pillboxes, only Tigers in 42-early 43 or KVs in 41 are tough enough to take that kind of abuse. Even then, someone is going pour a maltov down the crew air intake and otherwise make life unpleasant for the guys in the pillbox.

WWB

[Hortlund]

This is my opinion:

If every tank crew in an immobile tank will bail out if the tank is hit by small arms or small calibre guns, then I think it should be changed.

If you want I can dig up countless examples of situations in world war two where tank crews of all nationalities chose to stay and fight in their vehicles despite being immobilized, on fire, under fire, you name it.

On the other hand I can also dig up countless of examples of situations in world war two where tank crews chose to bail out before they saw the enemy, when a near miss made the tank shake, when a non penetrating hit occured, you name it.

Maybe we should agree that anecdotal evidence cant really solve this one. Why? Because we are dealing with psychology here. What makes some people cowards under fire, what makes some people act with complete disregard for thier own safety. This is not an easy question, and it is far to complicated to just brush aside with some examples of real life anecdotes. Because for every example of bailing out you can produce, I can produce an example of a crew staying with their tank.

Returning to my option:

If every tank crew in an immobile tank will bail out if the tank is hit by small arms or small calibre guns, then I think it should be changed.

Ask yourself this question. Is it reasonable that every tank crew in an immobile tank under small arms fire bails? Is it in any way historic? Does it in any way give us a good example of combat in ww2?

Let me give another example. Suppose someone found out that every sniper in the game would panic if there was an enemy squad within 50 yards. This proved to be reproduceable, every time an enemy squad came within 50 yards from a sniper, that sniper would panic and try to run away.

Someone would say "hey, that sounds weird, that should be changed"

but then someone else would say

"hey, I can understand that sniper being afraid and wanting to get the he** outta Dodge"

someone else would agree

"yeah, can you imagine laying there alone watching 10 guys approaching your position, the smartest thing to do would be to retreat, regroup and then fight another day"

a third person would claim that "it was standard procedure for snipers to pull back when the enemy got too close, and it all makes sense, because a sniper should always kill from a distance, and then dissapear".

People would then start to post examples of real life encounters where snipers ran away at the first sight of the enemy etc etc.

I guess what Im trying to say is that its beside the point.

[Ruthless]

Agreed. Of course, they could also become "elite" through training (101st Airborne, for example.)

Although certainly a very good model, the CM model of soldiers does not (apparently) differentiate between courage, experience, discipline, intelligence, etc.; at least not on a level that is visible to us, anyway.

My interpretation of "elite" is that they have been highly trained and probably have some (though they may not) combat experience. "Elite" forces, such as Navy Seals, are elite by training. "Veteran" is, I would interpret, someone with significant combat experience. CM amalgamates experience/training/courage/etc into one adjective (although I guess you can set "fanatic" and leader bonuses, too) which makes the discussion a bit confusing.

However, I still believe that, based mostly on crew experience and current situation, some crews would stick with immobile tank, some would bail, within the time constraints of a CM game.

For all or most crews to bail quickly out of an immobilized tank under very light AT fire is counterintuitive. They might at least try to locate the gun and knock it out before bailing.

I'd be interested in hearing from BFC a little more (nothing classified, of course!) about how their model works.

[Francesco]

I hope this is possible in CMBB... at least as a "dig-in" tank (in CMBO it was posible, right?), maybe also on a paved road (?), as it is here, in Berlin '45:

[Achim]

please remember, the test is very special.

one tank, 4 flak guns, thats it.

in real life combat this mission will never happen, there is always a tank hunter team or something, and the elite crew knew this (they fought a lot of battles), if they get imobile, they are dead (in a few hours, minutes).

the crew in my test didnt know that there are only 4 flak guns, they though there are more soldiers (like in "real life")

i will try another test, i am using elite crews AND fanatic troops.

(fanatic trops fight to death)

[Ruthless]

Originally posted by Achim:

<snip>

there is always a tank hunter team or something, and the elite crew knew this (they fought a lot of battles), if they get imobile, they are dead (in a few hours, minutes).

<snip>

[Emphasis mine]

(1) As we saw in the Yelnia Scenario that has been much discussed, the Germans have little hope of killing the T-34 crewmen in their tanks (maybe a few lucky penetrations by little AT guns, but that's it. And the tank hunter teams have little hope of reaching them through all the guns blazing across the open ground.) Thus, having supporting units is very important to their survival. If lots of friendly infantry around, tank hunter team probably won't be able to get close, especially across open ground.

(2) It is true that if they are isolated, they will eventually be destroyed, but if they have a few hours and they believe they may be rescued (or may be able to take out the gun firing at them) I think they would tough it out for while.

The point of view above is correct I think: In either case of crews 100% of the time abandoning immobilized tanks or 0% of the time abandoning immobilized tanks, the model is flawed. Sometimes crew will abandon a tank, sometimes not. I suspect (total speculation) that it is possible that a crew will not abandon an immobilized tank in some cases. I don't know what that chance is or if it is correct chance, or even if my supposition is true.

[Ruthless]

Hmmm...emphasis seems to be missing! Well, use your imagination.

[Achim]

This time i choosed the fanatism setting too

(50 % fanatism)

i ran the test 6 times, all times the crew bailed out.

i though the crew will never use an imobile tank as a pillbox (in my SPECIAL test, i dont know if the tank crew use the tank as a pillbox in a normal game (surrounded by friendly infantrie and tanks).

if somebody think the game is crap, this isn´t true, the game is wonderfull, i never saw a tank surving a battle if it is imobile, the next shoots killed the tank .....

the "tank engine" is wonderfull too (tank death clock, damage modell and so on)

this test was a very special case, it will never happen in real combat.

[ASL Veteran]

I'm only posting examples because they are interesting to me and they do show some examples of how men reacted under fire. These examples are not intended to prove a point, but merely to establish some baselines for behavior - or at a minimum provide some understanding of what these crews were subjected to. In the example of the Tiger, it was not immobilized. Mobility was retained throughout the battle. It was posted to give the friendly readers of this message board an idea of what the crew would face from non penetrating hits. I hope I've illustrated at the very minimum that it isn't a pleasant experience, and that the risks to the crew from small caliber weapons are not entirely non existant.

For the Japanese examples, I merely show that even troops who are culturally steeped in honor, courage, and duty can and will bail from a tank if he is subjected to enough stress. This basically makes the regulations angle of the discussion a moot point as each individual is going to reach his own decision on what he is going to do to survive irrespective of regulations. At some point, a soldier's desire to survive will outweigh his desire to do his duty. I also hoped that it illustrated some of the dangers a tank crew faces while on the battlefield. If others have examples of bailing crews or the effects of AT fire on crews then by all means post them. It helps the discussion because it is much more helpful than someone saying "I wouldn't bail out of a tank under circumstance X" because, ahem, unless you've been in that situation you are just talking out of your ... well, you get the idea .

Personal accounts are the only baseline that we have for the behavior of tank crews under fire, so any rational discussion of the subject will necessarily require them. If we do not include personal accounts we are either left with a high level psychology discussion that should only include trained professionals, or we are left with a discussion along the lines of "Yeah, well I think X. Oh yeah, well I think Y." I don't think that the latter form of discussion really gets us anywhere.

From continued reading I've found that immobilization generally means abandonment. I'm not talking about just cases where the tank is under fire, but in all cases where immobilization occurs. Now, sometimes this happens immediately, and sometimes it happens several hours later, but abandonment generally occurs at one time or another if the vehicle can't be recovered. How quickly this abandonment occurs is probably directly related to the percieved threat to the crew, how much support from friendly troops the crew has around them, and the tactical situation.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Ruthless:

Agreed. Of course, they could also become "elite" through training (101st Airborne, for example.)

The 101st wouldn't be considered "elite" as CM uses the term. The formation overall would probably be considered veteran, with, perhaps, a crack company or elite platoon.

Here's what the manual says about elite.

The best of the best. Only a handful of personalities/squads qualify as elite soldiers. Extensive combat experience AND first-class training are required for elite status. Soliders of this caliber are exceedingly rare, even among first-rate forces like the airborne. The famous German tank ace Michael Wittmann is a good example of an "elite" tank commander.

[ASL Veteran]

If someone who has the game (Northern California isn't northeast enough ) would like to establish some parameters for abandonment in CM, I think some additional tests are necessary. The test run so far has 4 20mm Flak Guns firing on an immobilized IS2 tank or something like 5 50mm PAK(a significant amount of firepower in my mind). Does an immobilized tank that has nothing firing at it abandon (threat level zero)? How about just one 20mm Flak gun? Two? Three? Eighteen? How long does it take for the abandonment to occur? Is there a difference between how long it takes a Conscript crew to abandon vs an Elite crew? If we find that two flak guns cause no abandonment and four do, then does this still fit in the category of "BTS fix or do somfink" or is it just a difference of opinion on how 'uncomfortable' the tank crew would be when subjected to that level of firepower.

[Achim]

@ASL Veteran:

The crew expierence doesn´t matters, green, elite conscript, all bail out in 1-2 turns.

the flak guns didnt fire at an imoblile tank, the guns imobile the tank, after that the crew bail out.

at the beginning of the test, the tank is OK (no damage).

i choosed 20 mm because its a very small caliber, they cant hurt the tank.

i chosed 5 50 mm paks AND 4 20 mm flak guns, the crew bailed out after turn 2 (the tank get hit at the tracks (imobile) after that, the crew bailed out (after some more gun hits).

all guns fired at the tank, then i tried the flaks only, same result.

5 paks, and 4 flaks = crew bail out at turns 1-2

4 flaks = crew bailed out at turns 1-2

every "test" is a "chain" of 6 tests in row (not only 1 test, if i only choose one test, the effect can be "bad luck" but i get everytime the same result)

[Achim]

Back again ....

OK, i ll post all informations ...

Hotseat game

extreme fog

year 1945

russion crew ist elite, german veteran

a flat map, 2 hills, both high 9, one hill with trees (wood), other hill nothing but gras.

distance between the hills, 520 meters.

(ammo flak vierling 85 shots)

place the flak vierling (20 mm) on the hill with the wood, put the IS 3 at the hill with the gras (no cover), then button up the tank (no hull down position for the tank, if u choose hull down, the crew wont bail out).

both facing each other

hill with tank --------520 meters------ flak in woods

then start firing with the flak at the tank, the tank cant see the flak (because its in the woods).

after two turn u will be very surprised .....

ONE flak vierling imobile the IS 3 AND the crew bailed out .....

i tested this 4 times, the crew bailed out 3 times, at the other test the flak ran out auf ammo ....

it would be very nice if another cmbb player retry the test .....

because i cant believe this too .......

[Commissar]

Originally posted by Achim:

Back again ....

OK, i ll post all informations ...

Hotseat game

extreme fog

year 1945

russion crew ist elite, german veteran

a flat map, 2 hills, both high 9, one hill with trees (wood), other hill nothing but gras.

distance between the hills, 520 meters.

(ammo flak vierling 85 shots)

place the flak vierling (20 mm) on the hill with the wood, put the IS 3 at the hill with the gras (no cover), then button up the tank (no hull down position for the tank, if u choose hull down, the crew wont bail out).

both facing each other

hill with tank --------520 meters------ flak in woods

then start firing with the flak at the tank, the tank cant see the flak (because its in the woods).

after two turn u will be very surprised .....

ONE flak vierling imobile the IS 3 AND the crew bailed out .....

i tested this 4 times, the crew bailed out 3 times, at the other test the flak ran out auf ammo ....

it would be very nice if another cmbb player retry the test .....

because i cant believe this too .......

Hmmm, and they say the Tiger or its varients are the uberweapons. Forget that, start buying 20mm flak guns and start knocking out elite tanks by droves.

[Andrew H.]

There's something else going on here. In Citadel, I had an immobilized Pz III not bail out for something like 35 turns.

I wonder if the tank's morale is affected by the global morale of the units around it, and the tank in the Flakvierling test "knew" that it was alone on the battlefield.

Whereas my Pz III in Citadel knew that there were 10 other German tanks still running.

In other words, the fact that an immobilized tank is the lone survivor on the battlefield might increase the odds of bailing out substantially.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

There's something else going on here. In Citadel, I had an immobilized Pz III not bail out for something like 35 turns.

I wonder if the tank's morale is affected by the global morale of the units around it, and the tank in the Flakvierling test "knew" that it was alone on the battlefield.

Whereas my Pz III in Citadel knew that there were 10 other German tanks still running.

In other words, the fact that an immobilized tank is the lone survivor on the battlefield might increase the odds of bailing out substantially.

I am wondering the along the same lines. What if a company of infantry supports the tank? Does its behavior remain the same?

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Achim:

Back again ....

OK, i ll post all informations ...

Hotseat game

extreme fog

year 1945

russion crew ist elite, german veteran

a flat map, 2 hills, both high 9, one hill with trees (wood), other hill nothing but gras.

distance between the hills, 520 meters.

(ammo flak vierling 85 shots)

place the flak vierling (20 mm) on the hill with the wood, put the IS 3 at the hill with the gras (no cover), then button up the tank (no hull down position for the tank, if u choose hull down, the crew wont bail out).

both facing each other

hill with tank --------520 meters------ flak in woods

then start firing with the flak at the tank, the tank cant see the flak (because its in the woods).

after two turn u will be very surprised .....

ONE flak vierling imobile the IS 3 AND the crew bailed out .....

i tested this 4 times, the crew bailed out 3 times, at the other test the flak ran out auf ammo ....

it would be very nice if another cmbb player retry the test .....

because i cant believe this too .......

Hmmm, I do find this result to be interesting. I'm curious to know if, after you get the immobilization result, can you cancel the Flak's targeting of the tank and hide it to see if the crew of the IS3 will bail when no further fire is directed at it? 3 bails out of 4 immobilizations is not a 100% ratio either, so we now know that the crew will not bail 100% of the time while under fire in an immobilized tank. We just need to find out where the 'breaking' point is. Also out of curiosity, can you see what morale status the tank crew is at when bailing? ie, Alerted, Cautious, Panicked, etc. Is the result the same with one 50mm PAK instead of one 20mm Flak?

[Battlefront]

Guys I will check into this. Expect some tweaks in v1.01.

Charles

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Guys I will check into this. Expect some tweaks in v1.01.

Charles

Good Lord, Member #1 speaks!!!!