45mm Russian guns, you gotta be kidding!

[Doug Beman]

George Forty's German Tanks of World War Two has many examples of German tanks getting plonked by medium and large calibre AT guns, as well as by arty, with crews staying in the whole time.

Macksey's Tank vs Tank has several examples of this happening to Soviet tanks, including during one of the first times the Germans encountered a KV1. The tank parked on a road that was part of the German supply network, and resisted shots from 88 and 105mm guns, as well as the 50mm guns of some PzIIIs. Eventually the Germans distracted the KV with tanks, and towed some guns behind the tank. These guns hit the tank and damaged its main gun, but the crew refused to come out and so German troops threw explosives under the vehicle to finish the job.

DjB

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by TSword:

Conscript or Green may bail out, but surely not a veteran crew !

During reading of Nipe's Last Victory, the german tanks were hit quite frequently insuring somebody inside and never did the crew bail unless tank was burning and had to be abandoned, instead they drived into safety first.

The same for Assault Guns (Forget the name of author): Many times the StuG's were penetrated by 14.5 mm ATR's, the crews then tried first to drive into safety but surely didn't bail (Meaning to be slaughtered immediately..)

In Tigers for instance it was barely noticeable if one was hit by ATR's or 45 mm guns as stated by several tancrews, because noise of tank and the battlefield.

Nothing has therefore to be changed IMO (I would rather go crazy...)

Greets

Daniel

Well I think vets are capable of being scared just as greens are capable of being scared. They are human beings, not robots.

When you panic, you don't think logically. You don't weigh the pros and cons of bailing from your tank; all youre thinking about is to leave the tank. The examples you mentioned involve crews that were not panicked. A rather uncommon thing after your tank has a hole knocked in it, usually by an enemy you haven't even seen.

You don't have to take my word for it, tankers who were there in battle will say the same thing I have been saying in this thread.

They bailed when their tank was penetrated. It was very rare for a crew to remain in the tank and continue fighting. And to be honest, if they did, they'd just die. The AT gun or whatever would simply keep putting rounds through the turret until the tank blew up.

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

[Definitely interesting, but far from what normally happened. It goes against human nature to remain in a vehicle that has been hit and penetrated. Sure, some crews were fanatical, angry and wanting to take a few enemies with them, or what have you.

But most normal crews would bail. I don't have a number or percentage to give you, but I'm pretty confident that you'd agree when I say it was the vast majority. Most certainly did not stay with the vehicle after getting penetrated, no matter how big or small the round was.

Well actually I don't agree, at all. I've got well-trained British tankers waiting for the order to withdraw in spite of turret/hull penetrations and not receiving the order because the Troop commander’s tank is unseen and on fire. Finally receiving the order from the Sqn commander.

I’ve got anecdotes of PIVs in Normandy receiving a turret hit that penetrated blowing open the side hatches, which the crew glibly closed and then drove off. I have photos of a PIV with a hull penetration above the drives vision block with a head bandaged driver smiling at the camera. Anecdotes of IS-2 receiving a turret hit killing the loader and forcing the wounded Commander and gunner to bail while the driver calmly reverses him self out of the Tigers field of fire.

You have an unshakable belief that marginal penetrations are that panic inducing to trained Tank crewmen, plus some vaguely referred to percentages that quite likely don’t exist. With this well researched argument you expect BTS to agree to your point of view. Good luck mate.[/QB]</font>

[Andreas]

Err, I think there maybe a tiny difference between a Sherman in 1944 receiving a penetrating hit from a 75L40, and a Panzer III in 1942 receiving a penetrating hit from an ATR or a 45mm gun. The difference being that the tank crew stands a good chance to survive the next hit in the second case, but has used up all their luck for this battle in the first case, if they survived. They have to weigh the risk of staying inside against the risk of receiving a nice burst from a Maxim if they bail, and that could really ruin their day. So examples from late war are not necessarily a good guide to early war happenings.

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips]

You have an unshakable belief that marginal penetrations are that panic inducing to trained Tank crewmen, plus some vaguely referred to percentages that quite likely don’t exist. With this well researched argument you expect BTS to agree to your point of view. Good luck mate.

Agreed. And let me add to the list of examples the case of a Matila I crew in the Arras counter-attack who, finding that it was disconcerting to have daylight showing through the armour where an AP round had penetrated their tank, bunged up the hole with a pair of socks and carried on.

All the best,

John.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

Aarrrghhh! These are isolated examples, and very rare ones. I never claimed crews NEVER fought after their tank was penetrated. It happened, but not much at all...versus the number that bailed immediately upon penetration.

Well, you keep saying that. Funnily, you are the one who has not brought any concrete example (I could give you 1(!), but I won't). Instead you tell us your unshakeable belief. Well, being the agnostic type, I go with the examples.

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by dizee:

[QB]is this realy a whining thread about the deathclock?

lol its one of the fines new features in armored combat in cmbb, and its perfectly realistic.

QB]

I think the deathclock is a good feature; firing until the tank is definitely on fire or you see the crew jump out is quite realistic. I just think that crews usually shouldnt remain with the vehicle once it is penetrated.

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

Aarrrghhh! These are isolated examples, and very rare ones. I never claimed crews NEVER fought after their tank was penetrated. It happened, but not much at all...versus the number that bailed immediately upon penetration.

Well, you keep saying that. Funnily, you are the one who has not brought any concrete example (I could give you 1(!), but I won't). Instead you tell us your unshakeable belief. Well, being the agnostic type, I go with the examples.</font>

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Err, I think there maybe a tiny difference between a Sherman in 1944 receiving a penetrating hit from a 75L40, and a Panzer III in 1942 receiving a penetrating hit from an ATR or a 45mm gun. The difference being that the tank crew stands a good chance to survive the next hit in the second case, but has used up all their luck for this battle in the first case, if they survived. They have to weigh the risk of staying inside against the risk of receiving a nice burst from a Maxim if they bail, and that could really ruin their day. So examples from late war are not necessarily a good guide to early war happenings.

Interesting... I would say the physical damage from the larger round would be more, but I'm mostly concerned with the morale effect. That would remain the same. In each case, you have a hole in the turret, and you are now aware that someone is firing at you with a weapon that can defeat your armor, not to mention that you are a big fat target, the center of everyones' attention (as tanks always are). Not good for your morale state.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

My common sense tells me abandonment was the natural human response to a penetrating hit. It would be highly unusual to remain in a vehicle, under fire, from a weapon you probably can't see, which just proved itself capable of defeating your armor.

What happened? the crew bailed. As well they should.

I'd take your milk money.

[MikeyD]

Hey man, the multi-hits and Death clock are what makes ALL the difference in CMBB! No more gamey Stuart vs PzIV encounters. Sure, you could get a couple 37mm penetrations on the heavier tank but he's still liable to tear your Stuart a new 'escape hatch' before you ever get to kill him. Makes watching the play-back a real nail biter. CMBB is not CMBO.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Err, I think there maybe a tiny difference between a Sherman in 1944 receiving a penetrating hit from a 75L40, and a Panzer III in 1942 receiving a penetrating hit from an ATR or a 45mm gun. The difference being that the tank crew stands a good chance to survive the next hit in the second case, but has used up all their luck for this battle in the first case, if they survived. They have to weigh the risk of staying inside against the risk of receiving a nice burst from a Maxim if they bail, and that could really ruin their day. So examples from late war are not necessarily a good guide to early war happenings.

Still, a 761 tanker, according to "Come Out Fighting", took an "88" hit that did not detonate, and passed cleanly between the legs of one of the turret men, severly injuring him. The crew continued to fight their tank, laying the wounded man on the floor of the turret.

So even in the Western Front, a tanker does not automatically leave the tank with a penetration, even one severe enough to wound a crewman and blow a big gaping hole in the tank.

[MikeyD]

I just thought of another penetration/no bail anecdote. Crisp's "Brazen Chariots" about the Desert War in Stuarts (Honeys).

In one anecdote a 20mm or 37mm hit to the bow pops a rivet which hits the hull machine gunner (I recall). Blood everywhere, screams, and Commander Crisp tells him to shut the hell up and let them get on with their work (my phraseology). They kept fighting. I think the crewmember eventualy lost his leg.

Another anecdote that a Vietnam war vet told me is rather odd. He said during a battle along the DMZ a U.S. M48 tank got holed right through the lower hull beneath the turret basket by a T54's 100 gun and did't even realise it til after they had limped back to base! The odd part is there is no 'official' tank vs tank engagements along the DMZ in the U.S. literature on the Vietnam war! You know what? I trust the vet's recollections over official statements from the Pentagon beurocracy.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I just thought of another penetration/no bail anecdote. Crisp's "Brazen Chariots" about the Desert War in Stuarts (Honeys).

In one anecdote a 20mm or 37mm hit to the bow pops a rivet which hits the hull machine gunner (I recall). Blood everywhere, screams, and Commander Crisp tells him to shut the hell up and let them get on with their work (my phraseology). They kept fighting. I think the crewmember eventualy lost his leg.

Another anecdote that a Vietnam war vet told me is rather odd. He said during a battle along the DMZ a U.S. M48 tank got holed right through the lower hull beneath the turret basket by a T54's 100 gun and did't even realise it til after they had limped back to base! The odd part is there is no 'official' tank vs tank engagements along the DMZ in the U.S. literature on the Vietnam war! You know what? I trust the vet's recollections over official statements from the Pentagon beurocracy.

My favorite anecdote from, Nam was told to me by a Staff Sargent at Fort Knox. “When I arrived at my post my tank platoon (M 48’s) drew patrol duty daily. This consisted of traveling a raised road bed 10 clicks out, spending the day and returning by nightfall. When we reached our patrol destination the crew would pass the time by sunning themselves on the deck, reading or doing whatever to pass the time.

I spotted a enemy soldier a couple clicks away through the range finder on one of my first patrols and hollered to the crew “enemy soldier!” they were not impressed. After excitedly pointing him out to them no one got excited and went back to what they were doing (still excited) I asked “What are we going to do?” receiving the answer “do whatever you want” they were completely uninterested.

I jumped into the turret, loaded a HEP round and proceeded to bring the target to bear. I noticed the soldier was leaning against a tree smoking when I found him in the range finder. I fired and when the smoke cleared I saw the tree was gone!

(As told to me my SSgt Cook at fort Knox Kentucky).

[Guest Mike]

Personally I think one of het erasons we have lots of accounts about crews staying in is because it was unusual - the "norm" doesn't get written about much.

however that said there were plenty of incentives to staying in a tank that wasn't actually burning - everyone apparently happily machine gunned enemy crews escaping KO'd vehicles, for example, and I'm sure that fate would be in their mind.

So I don't think there's a simple solution - lots of things go into the "mix", but I suspect the 2 most important ones are the crews perception of their chances inside vs their chances outside.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

First of all, it defies common sense and is contrary to the instinct of self-preservation to remain in your tank once it has been penetrated. It's full of ammo and fuel, you can't even see what hit you most of the time, you know that they're gonna keep firing at you, with a weapon that put a round through your armor, and you know that the next one has a chance of taking your head off or setting the ammo alight. The crews bailed most of the time.

Your anecdotes are hardly proof that all the tank crews of WW2, or even most of them, were robotic cyborgs that didn't have feelings of fear or stress, and would fight to the last man. That just didn't happen, except in extremely rare instances. The reason those anecdotes stand out so much, about super bravery in the face of the enemy, or fighting to the death, is BECAUSE they are so rare.

[/QB]

‘Commonsense’ has nothing to do with it You’re in the army now. Training/drill if done properly overrides common since. DO you really think it was commonsense to continue walking into packed MG fire of WWI? Or the countless incidences of the same carried out at walking pace and cavalry charges by the British during the Crimean war?

Do you also ignore German regt Combat reports detailing the Russians penchant during the first two years of remaining within their penetrated, immobile yet still shooting tanks until they could be blown up by Pioneers/Infantry.

It happened at different places and at different times but almost always when crews were confident of their tanks and training.

The Sherman had a known propensity to burn when penetrated during Normandy. This equals a low confidence in the survivability the crews when even marginal penetrations are achieved. The Germens on the other hand even with PIV re titled, as “Red Beard the thin skinned” by their crews did not have the propensity to burn as the Sherman’s

The number and perfusion of anecdotes tend to indicate it was a regular enough choice and occurrence to remain in the veh that had received non-critical hits. And why not, even British Sherman crews speak of the at times overwhelming feeling of nakedness when bailing out into a combat zone. “I just could not conceive how the infantry put up with it.” (1996 Macksey). These are not a single isolated incidence of the 8,8cm gun killing a British cruiser tank at 32km in the desert.

Again you have not actually constructed an argument. Telling everyone that in the depths of my soul I agree with you is not really compelling to me at all.

[StellarRat]

My reading tells me that the crew will usually bail in a tank vs. tank battle, but might very well stay in the tank if there is a lot infantry fighting going on, preferring to take their chances rather than be shot upon leaving the tank. One should also remember that prisoners from either side were almost as good as dead on the Eastern Front hence far more chances of fighting until the bitter end.

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Bastables:

These are not a single isolated incidence of the 8,8cm gun killing a British cruiser tank at 32km in the desert.

What are you trying to say here? 32 km would be an over the horizon shot. Do you mean 3.2 KM? I might believe that one.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

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

These are not a single isolated incidence of the 8,8cm gun killing a British cruiser tank at 32km in the desert.

What are you trying to say here? 32 km would be an over the horizon shot. Do you mean 3.2 KM? I might believe that one.</font>

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by Bastables:

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

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

These are not a single isolated incidence of the 8,8cm gun killing a British cruiser tank at 32km in the desert.

What are you trying to say here? 32 km would be an over the horizon shot. Do you mean 3.2 KM? I might believe that one.</font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

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

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

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

These are not a single isolated incidence of the 8,8cm gun killing a British cruiser tank at 32km in the desert.

What are you trying to say here? 32 km would be an over the horizon shot. Do you mean 3.2 KM? I might believe that one.</font>

[Sgt. Beavis]

[/QB]

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by Mike:

Personally I think one of het erasons we have lots of accounts about crews staying in is because it was unusual - the "norm" doesn't get written about much.

however that said there were plenty of incentives to staying in a tank that wasn't actually burning - everyone apparently happily machine gunned enemy crews escaping KO'd vehicles, for example, and I'm sure that fate would be in their mind.

So I don't think there's a simple solution - lots of things go into the "mix", but I suspect the 2 most important ones are the crews perception of their chances inside vs their chances outside.

Also a good post... I think your last paragraph reflects some of the difficulty in getting a handle on how often and in what situation a crew would bail out of the tank. Always a different set of circumstances.

[Robert Isenberg]

I've just read the 2 pages of this thread and no where in it does the word COMMISAR or POLITICAL OFFICER come up

condidering the way russians treated routed troops

in the early to mid war

getting shot by your own people might be some insentive to stay with your tank(at least form a russian POV

Training is going to help out,as is fear of those projectiles that can't pierce your tanks hide but can pierce you

[JonS]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

... I will let the issue go for now, I just think the crews should have a higher tendency to bail, especially the green Soviets crewing the tanks in the demo ...[/QB]

I'm having troublke figuring out what your 'issue' is to begin with. The tanks crews do bail once:

a) the tank has been penetrated, and

said penetrated tank has been knocked out*, and

c) the Death Clock™® has runout.

Where, exactly, is the problem again? Is it just that they don't bail fast enough for you? Or would you prefer to know the split second the tank has been knocked out (i.e. do away with the Death Clock™®)?

Regards

JonS

* or they decide to abandon due to accumulated damage and or crew casualties and or morale reasons. Otherwise the sequence is the same.