45mm Russian guns, you gotta be kidding!

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

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

That story just gets better and better! Seems that everytime I read about it, something even more spetacular has been included. Starting to wonder how the real story was

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug Beman:

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

That story just gets better and better! Seems that everytime I read about it, something even more spetacular has been included. Starting to wonder how the real story was </font>

[Holien]

This new feature is fantastic and has taken the game into a new league. Long live the death clock!!

As to the arguments about staying with a tank or getting out it is all down to the vehicle, Crew training and common sense.

Lets look at the Russian front early period.

The German tankers have had some fantastic successes in Europe against the French and Brits. The guys are on the crest of the wave and believe that they are invincible. They have a strong belief in their tanks and the ability to protect them.

Sure the first time a tank gets penetrated they might be a tad upset (if they noticed it.) However, after the first battle where a tank gets penetrated the crews would spend a lot of time out of battle talking about what is best to do.

Once seeing how a penetration did little and the known dangers of getting out of their highly visible target and the effect of MMG's and rifles the common sense approach is that it is best to stay in the metal box.

This would have continued to be the case until they ran into something that made bigger holes. Now we are onto a different set of rules. Later during the war a bigger hole would invariably mean (well a greater chance of) more damage and I hope this is modelled in the game.

In this case the crew would take a view depending on the damage done. It might run something like this.

1. Were we hit? Do we notice where and the damage?

2. Yep it has done X?

X = Engine on fire = Bail as soon as you realise this is the case. (this might take some time to notice!)

X = Ammo hit tank exploding, or will shortly! Bail, as soon as realise this is the case.

X = Crew member(s) hurt. = Assess if you can fight on / retreat from the situation. If not then maybe bail. E.g. Driver hit and you feel they have the range on you.

In all cases where the crew decides to bail it will take some time to gather their wits and choose their moment to get out. This will be variable for each crew.

You will only bail if you really have to as you know that MMG's and rifle fire will kill you quicker than being hit by a single AP round.

Remember their are many more small bullets on the outside than the single big one which might or might not hit the tank, or penetrate, or if it does actually hurt you.

Now as mentioned some crews get the idea that their tank does not give the required protection. The Sherman is an example of this. This gets around through talk (after battles etc..) and people seeing the effects of a hit.

This negates the views above because now it is better to be outside. It becomes wisdom to be on the outside.

As mentioned previously German tankers and Russian tankers never really felt bad about their vehicles. This means that you will stay with your vehicle longer than say a Sherman crew.

The way this has been implemented in the game is IMO is GREAT. It caters for the various real life happenings and removes the certainty from the battlefield.

It makes tanks harder to deal with and is one improvement that just absolutely rocks!!!

I can not believe that people are saying it is un-realistic.

If you put yourself (try anyway) into the feet of the people with the cultural views and training of the period, I think you would try and stay with the box as long as possible. If it moves it is safer to reverse out of the situation...

Just my view on the debate so far....

H

[ September 05, 2002, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Holien ]

[Guest Mike]

I wanna see how long the death clock takes when a 122mm APHE disembowels a Panther!!

[Ymir]

I don´t think yu can find any crew not bailing out after an PF hit in the crew comp.

Why, simple. A large HEAT round will penetrate, and melted slag will make the living cod. inside the tank quite unplasent.

In the Army we fired a M-72 (the 80´s NATO PF) at a car. Not a big bang, but yu could fry your bacon at the engineblock.

[Holien]

Everything is relative...

A PF might only get a partial penertration and not get full effect. Maybe just a small spurt which might burn someone but not kill them.

For example a burnt arm. It might go something like this...

Radio Man :- Ochhhh!!!!

T/C :- Whats wrong???

Radio Man :- Ochhhh!!! (Which is repeated over and over until he becomes capable of a decent response).

T/C :- Whats wrong??? (He does not look down as he has a full scale tank fight on his hands).

Driver :- Whats wrong??? (He does not look over as he is too busy driving and trying to avoid a second hit).

Loader :- Whats wrong??? (He does not look down as he is too busy firing / loading the gun).

So this continues until they get another hit (PF or not) which they realise is serious, as per previous post.

E.G. "Hans what dis tat smell" after some time investigating and checking underwear they realise that it is not underwear and a burning smell...

Then they bail....

Come on chaps anything can penetrate and not always cause the crew to bail. CM 1 (as us Europeans call it) was too predictable. CM 2 (as us Europeans call it) is not and it is a leap forward...

H

P.s. I feel I need to apologise for attempting to make fun at national sterotypes...

[Michael Emrys]

From my readings the sequence of priorities ran something like this:

1. The tank takes a hit. If nothing critical is damaged, it continues fighting as before.

2. If the gun is damaged or a crew member is incapacitated, but the tank still moves, the crew will try to drive out of the fighting.

3. The vehicle is immobilized but can still be fought (i.e., armament is still functional), the crew will continue to engage the enemy from within the vehicle.

4. If there is imminent danger of fire and/or explosion, then and only then will the crew leave the safety (real or imagined) of their armored fortress and bail out.

Even on the Western Front tank crews repeatedly testified that they felt safer in their tanks than outside them on the battlefield. This belief need not have been entirely rational to be a powerful motivator to remain with their machines. Of course, such feelings could and did vary widely from crew to crew and from episode to episode depending on circumstances and morale, for instance. Sherman crews may indeed have been readier to jump ship than other types due to the rumored tendency of this type to brew. Any crew faced with a Tiger or JS-2 may have already been predisposed to jump. But I for one am not convinced that green crews would always jump sooner than more experienced ones. They might have been living in blissful ignorance of the dangers they were facing. There are sufficient instances of valor to the point of rashness among green crews to validate that point.

But again, I think that the most likely thing a crew will do when its morale breaks due to damage to its machine or injury to the crew is to withdraw from the fight (assuming they still have a runner). I have a hunch that this is what we are going to see a lot of in the game as well. It happened in the very first time I played.

Michael

[TSword]

Someone noted:

"X = Engine on fire = Bail as soon as you realise this is the case. (this might take some time to notice!)"

Some tanks were fitted with fireextinguishers, in case of (the ones i know for sure..) Tiger and Panther an automatic extinguisher was installed with a warning lamp at the drivers panel for an engine fire. There was also a second extinguisher in the crewcompartment which could be operated freely (It's filling was something Halon-like). In case of an engine fire smoke was normally not pushed into the crewcompartment as long engine run, because the fans created a lower pressure and sucked it out. (A Tiger or Panther with engine fire was something really spectacular, because the fans would create a towering flame (suck air in from the gills and push fire out the fan opening).

Greets

Daniel

[Holien]

To add to what TSword mentioned.

With engine fires with certain tanks the crew might stay in the vehicle longer and try and deal with the fire!!!

So perhaps the model should be changed to keep the crews with the tank longer?

H

[Scipio]

I think the new way is much better! I can't say if it is more realistic or not. I even don't think that anyone here on this board can say this, except he was for several month on a WWII battlefield as tanker or AT crew himself.

But at least it is now not that selfevident to win vs a few bigger tanks with a bunch of small guns/tanks with their higher ROF and simply outnumber the bigger tanks. CMBO often works this way: many fast small tanks with smaller guns means more mobility with a high firerate = more shells in the air = higher chance for a penetration, and 90% of all penetrations in CMBO means a KO/abandoned tank.

If we assume that this was reality, than I wonder why the 'small tank' taktic was not the doctrine for all nations?

[MikeyD]

Ah! I just remembered the ultimate crew not bailing story (from a German first-person memoir I can't recall the name of)!

Frightened Germans wait for the assault in their trenches. A platoon(?) of T34s without infantry support rumble hesitantly into no-man's land and pause before the front line. The German line unloads EVERYTHING onto the tanks at once, like hail falling but no penetrations. Still the T34 crews panic. Some abandon their vehicles preferring certain death to the ungodly noise of the constant shell strikes. Others prefer committing suicide in their tanks to exiting into the meat-grinder out in the open.

I'd say if some tankers saw sticking a pistol in their mouth as preferable to hitting the ground, maybe bailing-out shouldn't automatically be considered the logical choice of crews.

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

That story just gets better and better! Seems that everytime I read about it, something even more spetacular has been included. Starting to wonder how the real story was

Actually, what happened was that the KV destroyed an entire Panzer Division that tried to assault the road junction it was guarding. The KV held on doggedly and was finally dislodged three months later when the Germans managed to bring up and assemble Thor just outside the KV's main gun range. After two days of fire the Germans got lucky and scored a direct hit on the turret top. This injured the commander and despite the commander's begging the crew to fight on they left the tank and snuck back to the Russian lines, so their beloved leader could get medical attention. On the way, they sabotaged and destroyed two German supply depots. That's the real story.

[Doug Beman]

You forgot the part where they destroyed the coastal guns at Navarrone, thus paving the way for the Allies to invade Mars and bring back both the Holy Grail AND the Ark of the Covenant.

I'd better never hear you call yourself a grog.

DjB

[ September 06, 2002, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[CRSutton]

American crews most likely bailed out more often due to the burning problems. Also one has to consider the mind set of the participants. I would think that British and American troops were more than willing to give up a tank knowing fully well that replacements were readily available.

I am not so sure about the East Front where the possibility of surviving in or out of the tank was less. You would have to think that there was a certain amount of fatalism. Personally, I would think that many crews stuck with a damaged vehicle as in the harsh winter conditions of the East-walking frequently meant death.

Also both sides pretty much knew the low survival rate for POWs and I would think that in itself would cause fewer crews to bail than in the West.

No hard figures here, just speculation.

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

Ok, for all those who dont know me, Im a trouble maker, thats right a trouble maker. I say things to hijack threads and to piss certain people off. Oh well, sorry about that. But tough cookies.

Well, well, well. Our Harvard grad student is back to enlighten all of us.