Does the new Tank Penetration Model go too far ?

[Fly Pusher]

While I agree that the ‘one hit and you’re dead’ model of CM:BO leaves something to be desired I would like to suggest that the new CM:BB Demo model, in which multiple hits and penetrations often appear to be ignored by tank crews, has gone too far in the opposite direction.

While I do not claim to be a military aficionado, it would seem to me that a tank crew whose vehicle had just been hit by an un-spotted anti-tank asset would be VERY worried. Had that anti-tank gun also penetrated the armour of said tank, then chances are that shards of red hot / molten metal would have spent some time dissipating their remaining kinetic energy bounced around within the living compartment of that tank. Even assuming that this does not injure / kill a crew-man or disable some vital piece of equipment wouldn’t you expect the next reaction of anything less than a Crack crew to be: ‘Lets get the hell out of there” ?

Think about it. Your sitting in a big target being shot at by an unseen enemy with a weapon capable of blasting holes in the armour separating you from him. By the grace of God, you survived the first hit, but you know dam well that they are stuffing another shell into that gun just as fast as they can. What would YOU do ?

Given the caveat of limited experience derived from the demo, I would like to respectfully suggest that the speed and frequency with which vechles are abandoned seems to be too low. I know grogs will cite cases where Finish light tanks were pierced by no less than sixty-three 76mm rounds and still went on to rout three divisions of infantry armed only with half a bottle of Aquavit and a small pair of nail scissors, but I would suggest that these cases were written up by the regimental historian precisely because they were uncommon. I would even dare to suggest that the vast majority of Finnish light tanks were probably abandoned after only the thirty or fortieth penetration.

Thoughts ?

[Gryphon]

Small calibre rounds like the ones in the demo (PDTR, PaK36, 45mm) don't have a large chance they will break off much armor. (dpeending on hardness and so) large calibre penetations are far more lethal. Where my 37mm PaK 36 needed 6 penetrations to spook the crew out of a T-34 my 75mm/L48 needed only one to kill the entire crew of a KV-1s.

I like it just the way it is. By the way, the penetrations you might be seeing are probably the death clock in action.

Regards,

Gryphon

[tools4fools]

I think it is an abstraction as well. It simulates how long it takes until your crew observed that the other crew actually has bailed out or that the tank is out of action.

If the tank is brewing up (molten iron, etc), well then you will see immediate "results" and know that the tank is out of action.

[Jussi Köhler]

Originally posted by Fly Pusher:

/Snip

armed only with half a bottle of Aquavit

/Snip

Excuse me, but the only ones armed with Aquavit in the Finnish-Russo war were the Swedish volunteers who brought it with them from Sweden...

We Finns found the bouquet too refined for our taste, preferring a little motor-oil mixed with vodka straight from a 37mm shell-case...

[ September 18, 2002, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Jussi Köhler ]

[Fly Pusher]

Its more the psychological 'impact' I'm thinking of. An AP round hitting your tank at 680m/s is gioing to make one hell of a bang. If some of it gets through or spalls armour from the inside its really going to get your attention. Would you really just sit tight and wait for it to happen again ? And again, and again..... ?

[Monty's Double]

This subject has already been raised, but I can't remember what the thread was called so I can't do a search. Based on my readings of a fairly catholic mix of regimental histories and personal accounts, the new handling of tank crew "feels" pretty spot on. I've read plenty of accounts where crews were hit several times without even noticing (tank engines are LOUD), and even when they were aware of penetrations, the idea of leaving their vehicle didn't seem that attractive (most crews would be aware that the area would likely be covered by machine guns and the like. From a gaming point of view, I love the fact that armour battles are decided less by single shots, as this rewards good tactics more than in CMBO, where one lucky shot often seemed to frustrate lots of hard work. What will be interesting to see is whether multiple penetrations are the norm with bigger calibre guns.

[Michael Dorosh]

Has it occurred to anyone that most tank crews were, umm, in the army, and had a little thing called discipline and one or two of them were a bit disinclined to leave their posts for that reason, even if the vehicle was hit? Not to be too sarcastic, but soldiers are indeed trained to stay at their positions even if (and I know this may be shocking to some of you) they are being shot at.

The other points about self-preservation, lack of situational awareness, etc., are good and well taken, but let's not ignore the fact that many of these men were quite dedicated to carrying out their jobs on the battlefield, and were not averse to putting their lives at risk in order to do it. Every man had his own line to draw between duty and self-sacrifice - deciding how to simulate that in a game is a tough thing indeed and what little I've seen of CMBB via the demo tells me the line appears to have been drawn fairly realistically, if any of the reading I have done is any indication.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fly Pusher:

Its more the psychological 'impact' I'm thinking of. An AP round hitting your tank at 680m/s is gioing to make one hell of a bang. If some of it gets through or spalls armour from the inside its really going to get your attention. Would you really just sit tight and wait for it to happen again ? And again, and again..... ?

If you were in a human wave and saw your buddies to either side of you shot down by a machinegun, would you really just keep walking and wait for it to happen again? And again, and again...

Check out some of the books on the Somme...it is incomprehensible to us, sitting safe at our computer, but think about a number of factors - stress (the human mind does really weird things when subjected to enough of it), training (tank crews don't often just jump out of their vehicles on whim, but wait for a command from the tank commander), etc. There is a lot at play in such a discussion.

[Fly Pusher]

I take your point Michael, and many brave men undoubtedly died at their posts. However I am a little reluctant to atribute too much to written accounts and histories that describe heroic deeds. These were documented precisely because they were heroic, noteworthy and throw a favourable light on the unit. The tank that survived the battle despite looking like a collander is bound to get more attention than the abandoned tank with a few scratches on the front glacis. With this in mind, I wonder just how common such 'multiply pierced' tanks really were.

[Panzer76]

Another discussion about this?! Well, prepare your old and proven arguments for a re-hash. Some topics never go out of style on this forum it seems.

Have I mentioned what I think about the scenarios in the demo?!?!

[Pak40]

FlyPusher,

I think the system is fine the way it is. The demo mostly has light AT guns in it, which is why we're seeing many multiple penetrations before the tank is discovered to be dead. The bigger caliber guns will require less penetrations. Some smaller caliber guns don't even have an explosive component in the projectile which will greatly reduce the chance of the crew getting hurt(and subsequently bailing out.

***SPOILER*** I remember playing the Citadel Scenario where my German tanks(75mm) quickly had a penetration on one of the KV-Is. The crew bailed quite quickly compared to tanks being penetrated by the 45mm AT guns.

[aka_tom_w]

I think it is good the way it is now

wait till you play the full game and see if this topic comes up again

I did not attend any previews and am not a beta tester,

BUT

I have good feeling this aspect of the game will

"feel right" in the full version

-tom w

[Fly Pusher]

Well, I hope everyone is right and my observation is just a function of light AT guns not delivering a one-off killer blow. It still feels a bit 'odd' to me, but I'm very willing to be proved wrong in a few days.

Have I mentioned what I think about the scenarios in the demo?!?!

No, I'm not sure I caught your comments on that particular subject Panzer76 - would you like to elaborate ?

[MikeyD]

To put your mind at ease, last night I was playing the CMBB Beta -- Quickbattle involving ISU-122s vs Tigers. No need to worry about excess multiple penetrations in that battle! KaBOOOMM!!!

[Spook]

For what it's worth, Fly Pusher, some of your initial comments are now the latest quote in my signature block.

[tabpub]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

To put your mind at ease, last night I was playing the CMBB Beta -- Quickbattle involving ISU-122s vs Tigers. No need to worry about excess multiple penetrations in that battle! KaBOOOMM!!!

and in that same vein, at the Rune preview a couple? months ago, I distinctly remember an ISU152 that was hit by a Tiger. The ISU was KO'd immediately with 2 casualties. I then watched as the Tiger continued to pound the ISU until she blew, just as the crew counter appeared. The lone survivor was quite pleased to be alive and VERY routed... :eek:

[Sgt. Beavis]

Ahhhh, someone has taken up my recent crusade

For what it's worth, Fly Pusher, I agree with your sentiments. I was playing the tutorial as the Germans (just for fun, I know it's not meant to be played as the Germans) and my AT gun had 4 front turret penetrations on a T-34. A 5th hit, that took out the main gun (since it stopped firing HE after that event but continued with MG), a few more ricochets, and a fifth penetrating hit to the front turret (none of these were partial penetrations). The tank didn't even back away from my gun.

At the end of the game, I saw that the crew had one casualty as well. I'm sorry, but it is beyond belief to suggest that 2 guys in a turret, seeing 5 (!) holes successively punched through their front turret armor (I'd respectfully suggest that these hits would be noticed...full penetrations, right in front of your face), having their main gun taken out, and one of those guys getting his arm taken off by shell fragments... and they still don't leave the tank. They were only a regular crew as well.

I'd hate to see if that T-34 was crewed by an elite group of men. I'd need a tactical nuclear weapon to be dropped on the turret roof to force them to abandon it, the way the armor rules are now.

[Spook]

I would also reserve judgement on "effect from multiple armor penetrations" until more play is done from the full game, as what others here have also advocated.

Yes, in the Yelnia scenario, I've seen the German 37mm make multiple penetrations on the Soviet T-34's while the tank crew remained "OK." Similar with the Soviet 45mm's against Panzer III's & IV's while taking flank shots. And...on one occasion in the Yelnia game, I saw one T-34 knocked out by a single 37mm FRONTAL hit.

Anway, here's some of what was included in the BTS "New Features" section to CMBB, specific to the reworked penetration model:

Lethality to vehicle crew of armor penetration has new, more sophisticated system which newly takes into account the mass of armor sent into the interior, the likelihood of the armor to fragment, and the size of the bursting charge of AP ammo, if any (and the chance it might not function properly on penetrations which don’t make it cleanly through). You’ll find that AP "shot" (which has no explosive capacity) tends to to a better job penetrating armor, but less damage once inside compared to AP "shells" which have an explosive charge. With small guns it now often takes multiple hits to knock out tanks, and often this will be from injuring or killing the crew rather than significant physical damage to the tank itself.

(snip)

Armor penetration success rates vary randomly to a greater extent.

(snip)

Small shells that penetrate armor are now less likely to result in a knock-out. Small guns will often have to achieve several penetrating hits to secure a knock-out (though if the target has low-quality hard/brittle armor, as the Soviets often do, then even small penetrations are more deadly due to armor splinters hitting the crew).

Armor penetrations that penetrate less than 15% "beyond" the armor resistance will be displayed as "partial penetration" and often are less dangerous to the crew of the tank which was hit. (Note: the reduced lethality is not a hard cutoff at 15%, that’s just the cutoff to show the ‘partial’ message).

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Fly Pusher:

However I am a little reluctant to atribute too much to written accounts and histories that describe heroic deeds. These were documented precisely because they were heroic, noteworthy and throw a favourable light on the unit.

Undoubtedly true. However, I have read accounts by tankers and interviews with same who have loudly and emphatically proclaimed their preference for being behind armor, even after it may have taken a few holes, than exposing their precious pink skins to all that metal flying around on the outside. Just how representative they are of all tankers, of course I cannot say. But I have yet to hear one proclaim that he could not wait to get out of "that blasted iron coffin". One that was on fire or about to be is another matter, naturally enough...

Michael

[Tarquelne]

However, I have read accounts by tankers and interviews with same who have loudly and emphatically proclaimed their preference for being behind armor, even after it may have taken a few holes,

Look at how often a tank survives being holed a few times. In the (demo) games I've played the t-34s seem to survive several penetrations about as often as they don't.

So, from that, one might argue that penetrations aren't deadly enough, but the little CMBB tankers seem correct in believing that staying in the tank isn't a bad idea, even if the tank is penetrated.

[flamingknives]

However I am a little reluctant to atribute too much to written accounts and histories that describe heroic deeds.

I think the Somme example is a good picture of how stubborn soldiers can be.

One battalion would advance and get mowed down by machine-gun fire, and then the next battalion would do exactly the same thing

You don't loose 10,000 men to a statistical anomoly

[killmore]

Here my input:

1) Tank death clock is a good model

2) Tank death clock significantly debalanced the game in favour of tanks because:

a) Tank borg spotting

No death clock on AT guns

c) AT Guns are too easy to spot

Summary:

I love tank death clock - it is realistic

AT Guns are now much less deadly then they were in reality.

[MikeyD]

As to © above, wait til you get the full game before you say AT guns are too easy to spot in CMBB. From what I've seen of the Beta an AT gun tends to survive longer than in CMBO and can be a REAL PAIN before you finally spot them... usually. My last Beta Quickbattle all my AT gun were taken out by Sturmoviks before the tanks even arrived!

You guys are gonna LOVE this game, and I can't wait to finally get my hands on the finished product!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Monty's Double:

This subject has already been raised, but I can't remember what the thread was called so I can't do a search. Based on my readings of a fairly catholic mix of regimental histories and personal accounts, the new handling of tank crew "feels" pretty spot on. I've read plenty of accounts where crews were hit several times without even noticing (tank engines are LOUD), and even when they were aware of penetrations, the idea of leaving their vehicle didn't seem that attractive (most crews would be aware that the area would likely be covered by machine guns and the like. From a gaming point of view, I love the fact that armour battles are decided less by single shots, as this rewards good tactics more than in CMBO, where one lucky shot often seemed to frustrate lots of hard work. What will be interesting to see is whether multiple penetrations are the norm with bigger calibre guns.

Here you go http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=000289

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

[QB]

At the end of the game, I saw that the crew had one casualty as well. I'm sorry, but it is beyond belief to suggest that 2 guys in a turret, seeing 5 (!) holes successively punched through their front turret armor (I'd respectfully suggest that these hits would be noticed...full penetrations, right in front of your face), having their main gun taken out, and one of those guys getting his arm taken off by shell fragments... and they still don't leave the tank. They were only a regular crew as well.

]

And yet German regt Combat reports of 41/42 speak of the Russian penchant for remaining within their T34s and KVs after being hit and penetrated several times.