Modelling non-lethal penetrating rounds

[Calibration]

Certain aspects of modelling the effect of an AT round hitting a tank are tractable if non-trivial problems. Penetration probability is a question of physics. The probability of causing a crew casualty one assumes can be derived or extrapolated from RL casualty statistics. What strikes me as very hard to model is the non-lethal effect (noise, concussion etc.) on the crew of sitting inside a steel container as a round slams around inside it.

In CMx1, in essence, a non-lethal (i.e. excluding a crew casualty or mechanical damage) penetrating round has no significant influence on the combat performance a tank. A very temporary raising of the alert status is all you usually see if anything. I may be in a minority here, but it has never felt right to see a tank receive a penetrating hit (or multiple hits) and continue to be able to shoot with no loss in accuracy or efficiency of its own fire.

So, I'm curious about how CM:BN addresses this issue if at all.

All the best.

[Erik Springelkamp]

CMSF has detailed damage reports on many parts, each varying from slight damage to completely destroyed. Optics deteriorating, tracks damaged but still able to move, radio, etc.

[Calibration]

CMSF has detailed damage reports on many parts, each varying from slight damage to completely destroyed. Optics deteriorating, tracks damaged but still able to move, radio, etc.

As I understand, but not really what I was asking It's the effect on crew performance I was interested in.

[stikkypixie]

Certain aspects of modelling the effect of an AT round hitting a tank are tractable if non-trivial problems. Penetration probability is a question of physics. The probability of causing a crew casualty one assumes can be derived or extrapolated from RL casualty statistics. What strikes me as very hard to model is the non-lethal effect (noise, concussion etc.) on the crew of sitting inside a steel container as a round slams around inside it.

In CMx1, in essence, a non-lethal (i.e. excluding a crew casualty or mechanical damage) penetrating round has no significant influence on the combat performance a tank. A very temporary raising of the alert status is all you usually see if anything. I may be in a minority here, but it has never felt right to see a tank receive a penetrating hit (or multiple hits) and continue to be able to shoot with no loss in accuracy or efficiency of its own fire.

So, I'm curious about how CM:BN addresses this issue if at all.

All the best.

The suppression meter goes up. I've seen crews bail out of working vehicles due to non-penetrating hits.

[dan/california]

And even if they don't bail out, a suppressed crew does not function very well. They may retreat out of LOS when you really wanted them to stay in the fight for instance. And suppression can occur from either non lethal penetrating rounds, or just a huge volume of fire rattling off the armor.

This is an assumption on my part, but I am willing to bet that with WW2 equipment their gunnery suffers as well. Modern tanks don't miss much unless the target is jinking like mad, and very lucky.

[Krilly]

........The Hunter didn’t get away unscathed though – it took a few hits on the glacis, and with the smokescreen blinding the crew they reversed away after only a minute of firing.

.... One solid hit was achieved, but in return four more American shells slammed into The Hunters thick hide, shaking the crew.

.... In the debit column, the crew are all still in one piece but The Hunter’s tracks are badly damaged and its speed has been reduced to a crawl. The radio and optics are also damaged, as is the nahver-thingy. It can still fight, but situational awareness is down, and manoeuvring is going to be painfully slow. Because of this The Hunter sat out the next 10 minutes of the fighting while the crew pulled themselves back together on the reverse slope of Hill 154.

Here's an excerpt from the AAR/DAR. It seems some crew moral effects (and some nice secondary damage effects) are in, but it doesn't go into much detail as to how 'shaken' the crew really was.

So it 'is in' we just don't know to which effect.

[gibsonm]

Here's an excerpt from the AAR/DAR. It seems some crew moral effects (and some nice secondary damage effects) are in, but it doesn't go into much detail as to how 'shaken' the crew really was.

So it 'is in' we just don't know to which effect.

Well based on CM:SF (I can’t talk to CM:BN due to the NDA) you don’t get “detail”, if by detail you want:

“The AP round didn’t quite penetrate the turret side, but dislodged the radio and sent if flying into Martin, the operator’s, face reducing to a bloody mess.

Johny the driver is puking his guts up and Charles the gunner soiled his pants as Steve the Commander yelled at them all to get a grip. “

What you do get is feedback on the crew in overall general terms and usually (depending on their morale, the specifics of the hit, etc.) they recover over a period of time.

[Krilly]

Heh, you misunderstood my intentions. I am not asking for that, I was trying to show that being hit already has psychological effect on crews. But we don't know the intricate details of it in CM:BN yet.

This in response to Calibration his question;

As I understand, but not really what I was asking It's the effect on crew performance I was interested in.

And your second part answers that nicely.

Would be interesting to see for example a Tiger crew abondoning their vehicle after some HE shelling or something similar, and what uproar that could give with the 'cat lovers'

[Calibration]

Of course, CMx1 is full of abstractions but after all my years of playing it I still gnash my teeth when I get told my tank has achieved a turret penetration on an enemy AFV only for the latter to fire back a few seconds later and nail you in return with one shot. Of course, when it's the other way around it's great It's the relative high frequency of such events which seem anomolous given that I've never come across such an incident in any description of RL WW2 tank combat. Then I again, I can't claim to uber-grogness in my reading.

I also question a bit the overall lethality of the smaller AP (i.e. with less bursting charge) rounds in CMx1. My personal record for the most penetrating hits in one minute failing to kill it's opponent is 7 by an Italian M13/40 on a Stuart. In an other thread Steve mentioned that infantry combat in CM:BN should "feel" better than CMx1. I'm hoping the same will be said for tank combat....great though CMx1 is overall.