Tank crews are VERY angry

[Achim]

OK, last test results ( battlefront said they will fix it).

Same terrain as above, bit this time 2 JS 3 tanks, a comander and his wingman, and some infantrie guys.

i placed the target tank (the wingman tank) on the hill, the infantrie HQ too (20 meters away).

the rest of the gang behind the hill (the target tank is in comand and control).

one flak at the other hill.

here are the results:

1 test: gun damage, imobile, bailed turn 1

2 test: imoblile (turn1) the crew DIDN´t bail out the flak ran out of ammo

3 test: comander get killed (turn 3?) the crew DIDNT´t bail out, flak out of ammo (i forget to write down if the tank is imoblile, sorry)

4) imoblie, crew bailed out at turn 2

5) imoblile, crew bailed out at turn 4

6) tank become imoblie in turn 2 (not turn 1), turn 5 tank comander get killed, the crew bailed out at turn 7

in all tests NOBODY shoots at the flak, the flak didnt get hurt all the time.

looks like comand and control lowers the "bail out factor", i think if somebod is shooting at the flak, the crew want bail out (the flak get suspressed, and the IS 3 would start firing too).

but remember, the IS 3 get imoblile in most test in turn 1, or turn 2 (sometimes at the beginning in turn 1, sometimes with the last hits of the round (imobile after 55 seconds).

i dont know the firepower of a 20 mm gun, but its awesome if this bastrds can shot the tracks of an IS 3 everytime.

thx battlefront that you are exemine the problem (i dont know if it is a problem or if its only the "real world")

[ASL Veteran]

Yes, I am thinking that the immobilization results are a little too quick for my tastes ... the Tiger in the part I posted above took a lot of damage in the tracks and roadwheels and still kept on going. There are also numerous other examples of Tigers that keep going when their tracks and suspension are getting pounded. Of course, that might just be a peculiarity of the Tiger so ... ? Still, it should take a little more than one or two minutes to disable a tank like that with small caliber weapons.

Thanks, Steve, for looking into these issues for us.

Here is the rest of the Tiger passage:

We counted 227 hits from anti tank rifle rounds, 14 hits from 5.7cm and 4.5cm anti tank guns, and 11 hits from 7.62cm guns. The right track and suspension were heavily damaged. Several road wheels and their suspension arms were perforated. The idler wheel had worked out of its mount. In spite of all this damage, the Tiger still managed to cover an additional 60 kilometers under its own power. The hits had caused the failure of several welded joints and caused the fuel tank to start leaking. The tracks had received several hits, but these didn't especially hinder the Tiger's mobility.

I'm thinking that the results of immobilization would be a delayed result. The track and road wheel damage doesn't seem to result in immediate immobilization with small caliber weapons.

[ September 22, 2002, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

[Ex-WWIIOL Player]

Just remeber that the 20mm Flakvierling has a practical rate of fire of approximately 700-800 rounds per minute (1680-1920 Cyclic).

It may be small calibur but its going to do some damage, either through weakspots or through shear vibration, 300 m range on a slow or stationary target would result in alot of hits.

Standard AP shells from a 20mm Flak 38 penetrate approximately 40-50mm of FHA @ 100m (0 deg). Though this would not be enough to achieve penetration on solid armour of a IS-3 it would be enough to blow through track components and view slits and optics. Though such components are hard to delibrately hit, with such a high rate of fire something would be damaged.

I'd also be a bit 'concerned' if my tank, no matter how heavy was hit by 400 (assume 50% hit) 20mm shells in the space of 60 secs. Sooner or later something is going to find a way inside. And as noted your likely to be tracked rather quickly.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Ex-WWIIOL Player:

Just remeber that the 20mm Flakvierling has a practical rate of fire of approximately 700-800 rounds per minute (1680-1920 Cyclic).

It may be small calibur but its going to do some damage, either through weakspots or through shear vibration, 300 m range on a slow or stationary target would result in alot of hits.

Standard AP shells from a 20mm Flak 38 penetrate approximately 40-50mm of FHA @ 100m (0 deg). Though this would not be enough to achieve penetration on solid armour of a IS-3 it would be enough to blow through track components and view slits and optics. Though such components are hard to delibrately hit, with such a high rate of fire something would be damaged.

I'd also be a bit 'concerned' if my tank, no matter how heavy was hit by 400 (assume 50% hit) 20mm shells in the space of 60 secs. Sooner or later something is going to find a way inside. And as noted your likely to be tracked rather quickly.

Are you certain of that ROF? That sounds a little high to me, especially considering that the MG42 has a cyclic of around 1,200 RPM and is considered 'astonishingly high'. In any case, all of the rounds fired by the Flak gun are not going to be impacting on the same part of the track - if they are hitting the track at all. The hits would be distributed all over the tank just from the weapon's vibrations when it fires. The angle the tank is facing will also have an effect. The target area of the track alone from the front facing for most vehicles is fairly small, and with undulations in the ground it would probably be a fairly difficult target to hit. Targeting the track from the side would be even more difficult. I also haven't run across any personal accounts that indicated quick immobilization is normal with small caliber weapons, because in CM it seems to happen consistently in under 2 minutes. Every once in a while I could accept it, but every single time? That seems a bit much to me - especially when considering personal accounts. The personal accounts seem to indicate that it is the cumulative damage from numerous small caliber hits which eventually cause the suspension and track system to fail, not that the track is "snipped clean" and broken after a minute or two of firing. Without more data though we are just engaging in speculation. How about if we just let Steve and Charles look into it and leave it at that for now? We can then test it again and see where we are at.

[Abbott]

How about if we just let Steve and Charles look into it and leave it at that for now?

Sounds like a solution to me.

[Andreas]

Waffenarsenal Bd. 142 '2cm FLAK im Einsatz' credits the gun with practical ROF of 800 rd/min. Personally, I don't think there is any way on earth that even a four-barrelled AA gun can throw out this amount of rounds 'practically' - the barrel would overheat very quickly, and where do you get all that ammo from???

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Waffenarsenal Bd. 142 '2cm FLAK im Einsatz' credits the gun with practical ROF of 800 rd/min. Personally, I don't think there is any way on earth that even a four-barrelled AA gun can throw out this amount of rounds 'practically' - the barrel would overheat very quickly, and where do you get all that ammo from???

Ah, yes I now see that he was referring to the Quad 20mm flak gun . I assumed he was talking about the single barrelled version. I think it was the single barrelled version that was in the test, but only Achim can confirm that. I would agree that a Quad 20mm spits out a lot of firepower, but the problems of causing immobilization would still be the same as before. The four barrels are also spaced fairly widely apart, so unless you get the range right you are going to be hitting all over the place. That and each barrel will be vibrating too of course.

As long as they are good, good, good, good vibrations... sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Ex-WWIIOL Player]

A Flackvierling has 4 barrels, hence the high rate of fire. The Fire rate is total, not for each barrel and the rates listed are as per both Ian Hogg's German Artillary of WW2 and US office of ordnance - Catalogue of enemy ordnance material vol 1 - German.

As to accuracy, at only 300m its a pretty accurate weapon, remember its designed to hit an Aircraft sized target at 500 - 2000 m. Accuracy was helped by sequencing the firing of diametrical opposing barrels which would help counteract each other.

The Flakv 38 also featured 2 sights for both anti-air and anti-ground unit combat, one x1.5 the other x2.5.

I would expect roughly a 50% hit rate on a enemy target in full profile (10.0 x 2.5m approx for IS-3), lowering as the profile reduced. Perhalps a 35% hit rate on a full frontal profile (3.0 x 2.5m approx), less for a hull down tank.

Gun barrel placement on a Flakv 38 was about 0.3m x 0.6-0.9m (approx) so it gave a pretty tight pattern.

[John Kettler]

Achim,

There is a historical basis for the problem you cite, and it is discussed in Zaloga's Osprey Vanguard pub on Russian(?) heavy tanks (read but don't own). There is a quote from a Soviet general to the effect that many KV crews were lost early in the war because they were insufficiently trained and bailed out when hit but not penetrated, only to be machine gunned to death. Zaloga provides a description of how truly unpleasant even a nonpenetrating hit could be, not to mention the attendant strike noise and its deleterious effect on crew sanity. The same general goes on to say that crew training was specifically altered

to emphasize staying with the tank unless forced to abandon and was made far more thorough. This greatly improved combat efficiency.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Claus B]

Someone mentioned noise inside the tank from non-penetrating hits as a factor for bailing out. In fact the Germans made tests of this in 1940, comparing the effect inside a captured Somua S-35 and a Panzer III.

The testresults reveal that continous fire by 2cm Flak at various points on the tank resulted in noise levels between 126 and 135 DB.

IIRC that is a bit higher than standing on the runway next to a 747 during take off.

My guess is that you could go temporarily deaf within a minute, but I'm no expert.

Claus B

[Ex-WWIIOL Player]

120 DB Air horn at 3'

130 DB is a Jet Engine taking off at 50'.

140 DB is the pain Threshold and even brief exposure injures unprotected ears. Maximum allowed noise with hearing protection.

In otherwords... ouch.

[Hortlund]

What do you think the db count is for a 88mm gun fireing from inside a steel can?

That's what headphones and earplugs are for...

[ September 22, 2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[Achim]

@John Kettler: This sounds good.

@Abbott: I dont wanne start the discusion again, battlefront said they will fix it.

but another forum member ask "what happend if there are other forces around the tank ?"

the member cant test this himself, so i did it and wrote down the results.

i say it again

this test DONT simulate typical CMBB battles, if my enemy only uses flak guns, i am the happiest man on the planet, the panters and tigers are my main problem (and pak´s, and infantrie with anti tank ammo. and Ari. and MG 42)

I dont want to say that the game is bad or something, the game is wonderfull.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Achim,

There is a historical basis for the problem you cite, and it is discussed in Zaloga's Osprey Vanguard pub on Russian(?) heavy tanks (read but don't own). There is a quote from a Soviet general to the effect that many KV crews were lost early in the war because they were insufficiently trained and bailed out when hit but not penetrated, only to be machine gunned to death. Zaloga provides a description of how truly unpleasant even a nonpenetrating hit could be, not to mention the attendant strike noise and its deleterious effect on crew sanity. The same general goes on to say that crew training was specifically altered

to emphasize staying with the tank unless forced to abandon and was made far more thorough. This greatly improved combat efficiency.

Regards,

John Kettler

I have the book (Soviet Heavy Tanks); one of the things Zaloga mentions is that non-penetrating hits can cause the hull to resonate, with the result that the crew gets nosebleeds *and* bleeds from their ears.

[John Kettler]

Andrew Hedges,

I believe that's the pub I read. I seem to also recall his describing a problem with bubbling, smoking paint and acrid fumes therefrom. What was the name of the Soviet general in the quote?

Achim,

I believe that several of the Russian tanks had floor hatches, making exit under fire much more survivable in general and especially while hull down.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andrew H.]

John Kettler:

Yes, this book also talks about how non-penetrating hits often cause the paint on the inside of the tank to burn, sending the smell throughout the tank.

It's not clear where the descriptions of non-penetrating hits come from. Zaloga makes reference to a report Gen. Yeremenko prepared in July of 41 in which Yeremenko says "Often our tanks went out of action due to the hesitant and unsure conduct of their crews rather than direct hits. For this reason, we subsequently manned the KV tanks with hand-picked crews."

Zaloga then continues, "Yeremenko touched upon a factor that is not obvious when trying to evaluate a tank from data tables and dry statistics about armour thickness and gun performance. A tank can be vulnerable even if its armor is impervious due to the frailties of its crew. [examples follow].

So the examples aren't from Yeremenko's report; they are Zaloga's examples which show the type of thing Yeremenko was talking about.

[Guest Mike]

I read somewhere that msot of teh Matilda 2's lost by the Brits during their counter attack at Arras in 1940 were to 20mm AA guns.

The guns set fire to almost anything that was flamable and on the outside of the tank, causing crews to bail due to overheating, smoke inhalation, etc!!

Unfortunately I don't have the source any more, and of course the M2 isn't quite the same as a IS-3, but I thought it might be of interest to someone!

[Herr Oberst]

Achim,

Can you redo without the extreme fog?

There may be differential effects on morale depending on what the crew can "see" even if disabled.

I.E., "I can't move, I'm in the biggest target on the battlefield, and I can't see squat." vs "I can't move, and I can't see anything lethal within range."

Just a thought.

[John Kettler]

Andrew Hedges,

You apparently do have the book I remember reading.

Thanks for the material on Yeremenko and the crews.

Hand picked crews would indeed be a big improvement

over random conscripts.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Abbott]

@Abbott: I dont wanne start the discusion again, battlefront said they will fix it.

but another forum member ask "what happend if there are other forces around the tank ?"

How about if we just let Steve and Charles look into it and leave it at that for now?

Sounds like a solution to me.

________________________

Achim I appreciated your posts and this thread. I have found it very interesting.

I should have written:

I am pleased Steve and Charles are looking into it” instead of copying a quote.

I am pleased you brought it to BFC’s attention, thank you. Sorry for any misunderstanding

[ September 23, 2002, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Abbott]

[ September 23, 2002, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[von Lucke]

I'm suprised this is getting so much attention now, since it's also the same bail-out routine used in CMBO!

Try this: Three quad-20's vs three Churchill VIII (1 ea. Elite, Regular, Green crews) at 500m. No chance of a kill.

Turn 1: Two Churchills Immobilized; one Gun Damaged.

Turn 2: Green Churchill is now Imm. and Gun Dam. Others, no change.

Turn 3: Green Bails after 20 secs. Other two Churchills become Imm. and Gun Dam. also. They both bail at 50 secs.

It's not the Immobilization or Gun Damage alone that's a problem, it's when both occur that crews bail. Always been that way with the CMBO engine, and since CMBB is based on same...

[Hans]

Hmmmm

Basicly under stress the crews will do a variety of things

I would say they would:

Abandon

Panic and abandon

Panic (but stay in vehicle)

Stay in vehicle but do nothing

Fight on as best they could

Based on crew experience I'd also say the better they were they more they would tend towards the bottom of the list (?)

However it would depend on the situation. In an attack they would abandon more readily that in a defense I would suspect.

Sounds like you'd need a complex algorthms with random factors included. ie some crews would fight on, some would cower some would abandon

[Achim]

@Abbott: it was my fault, english isn´t my mother language, if i write something, i think peoples missunderstood me.

@Herr Oberst: I ll try other fog of war settings at the evening, i think if the JS 3 locate the gun, the tank will kill the flak very fast.

@von Lucke: i never tested it with combat mission 1, and i never see that in combat (the AI never fire with flaks at my tanks, but if its the same algorithm they crew will bail out too in combat mission 1).

i am sure, if this is an unintentional feature, the battlefront team will fix it soon.

if u know your enemy, u can kill him

[Silencer]

A little story to add.

in '40 PZii 20mm couldn't do much against char and S-35.

But the germans used the rapid 20mm gun against the apx turret of these tanks, creating a 130dB+ sound inside the tank.

Crews surviving this were deaf and bleeding from the ears....

And this is just a singe 20mm, imagine what a quad 20mm will do....

S.