Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different

[Lanzfeld]

I think Steve talked about this briefly. No variation in size/shape of troops. Not going to happen because they would all require new animations and that is a big time/$$$ sink.

[Battlefront.com]

Correct. Having different soldiers in terms of height, body mass, etc. requires unique models and unique "skeletons". I'm not 100% sure, but I think at this point this would also require unique animation sets per skeleton. Huge effort for not enough "payback".

However, CMx2 does simulate stance and physical position within the 3D environment. The stances are Prone, Kneeling, and Standing. These affect cover, concealment, and spotting capabilities depending on exact circumstances.

Steve

[para]

Thanks for clearing that up

[kulik]

Not going to start a new topic for this but i have a question.

I play lots of Steel panthers and the common doctrine (listed also in manual) is to open up on the tank with every gun you have, even with MGs and small arms.

If you accumulate a huge amount of projectiles hitting the tank, the conditions inside this "steel pot" have huge impact on the crews morale and it gets pinned (crew scared to even look through the eye sights) and they may even bail out(which is kind of stupid if you ask me).

Is this historically correct?

Have non-penetrating shots MG and small arms fire any effect on armor in CM:BN?

[JonS]

but no effect, apparently.

No, but my guys believed it at least worth trying

[YankeeDog]

Not going to start a new topic for this but i have a question.

I play lots of Steel panthers and the common doctrine (listed also in manual) is to open up on the tank with every gun you have, even with MGs and small arms.

If you accumulate a huge amount of projectiles hitting the tank, the conditions inside this "steel pot" have huge impact on the crews morale and it gets pinned (crew scared to even look through the eye sights) and they may even bail out(which is kind of stupid if you ask me).

Is this historically correct?

Have non-penetrating shots MG and small arms fire any effect on armor in CM:BN?

In regards to the historical correctness, in extreme cases, perhaps. It was certainly doctrine to use small arms fire on tanks to keep them buttoned. But I'm talking about a few bursts of MG fire or aimed rifle fire here; I've never read a historical document suggesting that it was common practice to deliberately focus large volumes of small arms fire on a single tank in hopes of forcing a bail-out by small arms fire alone.

I've also read accounts which suggest that buttoned tank crews at times weren't even aware that small arms fire was pranging off the outside of the armor; the impact sounds being drowned out by engine noise, I assume.

So I think it would take a very large volume of small arms fire alone to seriously rattle a reasonably trained and disciplined tank crew. I don't think this would be a very worthwhile trade-off most of the time -- usually, you'll be revealing your infantry positions when you do this, which will make it much easier for the tank(s) to spot the infantry and return fire.

Combined with other factors, though, small arms fire on a tank might contribute towards a crew bail-out and/or surrender. For example, if the tank is already immobilized and starts taking enemy small arms fire from 360 degrees, the crew might assume that they are surrounded, and this would be a strong incentive to surrender.

Higher caliber non-penetrating hits would probably be a different matter.

Cheers,

YD

[kulik]

In regards to the historical correctness, in extreme cases, perhaps. It was certainly doctrine to use small arms fire on tanks to keep them buttoned. But I'm talking about a few bursts of MG fire or aimed rifle fire here; I've never read a historical document suggesting that it was common practice to deliberately focus large volumes of small arms fire on a single tank in hopes of forcing a bail-out by small arms fire alone.

I've also read accounts which suggest that buttoned tank crews at times weren't even aware that small arms fire was pranging off the outside of the armor; the impact sounds being drowned out by engine noise, I assume.

So I think it would take a very large volume of small arms fire alone to seriously rattle a reasonably trained and disciplined tank crew. I don't think this would be a very worthwhile trade-off most of the time -- usually, you'll be revealing your infantry positions when you do this, which will make it much easier for the tank(s) to spot the infantry and return fire.

Combined with other factors, though, small arms fire on a tank might contribute towards a crew bail-out and/or surrender. For example, if the tank is already immobilized and starts taking enemy small arms fire from 360 degrees, the crew might assume that they are surrounded, and this would be a strong incentive to surrender.

Higher caliber non-penetrating hits would probably be a different matter.

Cheers,

YD

Thanks for the answer.

[Erwin]

Isn't the theoretical reason to fire at a tank with small-arms is to damage the optics and other such less-armored things, jamming the tracks etc. thus degrading the tank, so hopefully it goes away (one way or another).

[Lt Belenko]

In an episode of Combat, Sarge once halted a tank by sticking a 3 foot log inside the track near the drive wheel. The tank went back and forth trying to dislodge it. Eventually, Sarge got on top and dropped a grenade in a hatch.

That is how you destroy a tank with a grenade. Vic Morrow is/was the man.

[YankeeDog]

Isn't the theoretical reason to fire at a tank with small-arms is to damage the optics and other such less-armored things, jamming the tracks etc. thus degrading the tank, so hopefully it goes away (one way or another).

Excepting very lucky "silver bullet" hits, small arms fire would be unlikely to do any real damage to the tracks or other elements of the drive mechanism of a tank. Optics are also generally pretty well protected against small arms fire, though again, "silver bullet" hits certainly are possible. Vision slits are usually covered with bullet-resistant glass, but they can be cracked and degraded by repeated hits. They're a small target, though, so it's going to take quite a few bullets to score those hits.

If you've got nothing other than a bunch of MGs and rifles available, and you just HAVE to stop that tank, I can believe that dumping a whole bunch of lead onto it in the form of rifle-caliber slugs may eventually lead to some lucky hits and damage. But unless you're really lucky, it's going to take a lot of bullets to cause substantial damage, and the tank is probably going to give back better than it gets.

Again, once you move up to the 14.5mm+ caliber stuff, the equation starts to change. Soviet ATR rounds had enough energy to cause damage such as "dimpling" the main gun barrel on a flat hit. So once to get to this level of energy, "death by a thousand pinpricks" becomes a more viable possibility.

[JonS]

Again, once you move up to the 14.5mm+ caliber stuff, the equation starts to change. Soviet ATR rounds had enough energy to cause damage such as "dimpling" the main gun barrel on a flat hit. So once to get to this level of energy, "death by a thousand pinpricks" becomes a more viable possibility.

Also damaging the optics, etc with that calibre is a lot more feasible.

There's also the other end of the spectrum too. By 1944 most AFVs were pretty heavily armoured, but earlier in the war that definately wasn't the case. Firing small arms at PzIIs and Mk.VIs and BT-7s would make sense, even if the same tactic against Panthers and Shermans is a bit forlorn.

[para]

Do soldiers mount tanks to destroy/disable them ala SPR?

[YankeeDog]

Do soldiers mount tanks to destroy/disable them ala SPR?

I don't need the insider information from being a beta tester to know that we're definitely not going to see this, at least in the sense of a graphical representation of a soldier actually climbing onto a tank, sticky bomb in hand, er whatever.

However, I would assume that various close assault desperation tactics have been factored into chances of infantry successfully damaging a tank at close range. But all this will probably be abstracted as a soldier close to the tank tossing a grenade er sumfink like that.

A small company like BFC just can't afford the modeling and animation cost (in time and $$) to graphically depict outlier stuff like infantry climbing up onto tanks and stuffing grenades into hatches. This kind of thing you'll have to add with your imagination.

[para]

I don't need the insider information from being a beta tester to know that we're definitely not going to see this, at least in the sense of a graphical representation of a soldier actually climbing onto a tank, sticky bomb in hand, er whatever.

However, I would assume that various close assault desperation tactics have been factored into chances of infantry successfully damaging a tank at close range. But all this will probably be abstracted as a soldier close to the tank tossing a grenade er sumfink like that.

A small company like BFC just can't afford the modeling and animation cost (in time and $$) to graphically depict outlier stuff like infantry climbing up onto tanks and stuffing grenades into hatches. This kind of thing you'll have to add with your imagination.

I got the imagination thanks for the reply

[futon river crossing]

I always enjoyed the "follow tank" command in CMBB - I wonders if that will be in CMBN?

[Other Means]

I always enjoyed the "follow tank" command in CMBB - I wonders if that will be in CMBN?

I think we've found the spy.

[panzermartin]

I don't remember follow tank command in CMBB??

[Gpig]

I do. But I never used it after the FIRST time. Good way to get your men massacred, IMO.

[panzermartin]

Ah, thats why I dont remember it It will make more sense in CM:BN since tanks provide cover now.

[JonS]

nah, it was for following enemy tanks, not friendly ones. I forget exactly, but IIRC it wasn't a specific command, but instead a way that the 'assault' command was implemented when applied to vehicles.

Initially, you could use 'assault' to attack tanks with infantry. However, if the tank moved - for whatever reason - then your infantry would be left mindlessly assaulting the empty ground where the tank used to be. So the behaviour was changed so that when under an 'assault' order they'd follow their target until either it or they died.

That's if I'm remembering it right

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I think he means the assault armor command, not following an AFV for cover, but rather moving to be able to attack even if the AFV moves.

[panzermartin]

Oh oh that, how did I forget it? Yes, I did use it sometimes too, not a great idea but handfull when you were chasing a tiger with molotovs

[LongLeftFlank]

In an episode of Combat, Sarge once halted a tank by sticking a 3 foot log inside the track near the drive wheel. The tank went back and forth trying to dislodge it. Eventually, Sarge got on top and dropped a grenade in a hatch.

That is how you destroy a tank with a grenade. Vic Morrow is/was the man.

ISTR that was a tactic -- DK how frequent -- used against T-34s during the Budapest Uprising (phone poles rammed between the bogies by a brave group of Hungarians, followed by MCs on the engine compartment).

RE: small arms fire vs armour, early war tanks didn't all have vision blocks or periscopes, so it might be remotely possible to hit the drivers et al. through a vision slit.

[Erwin]

The follow/assault tank command was very effective - in the right circumstances (dense woods, fog etc) or when the enemy AFV was distracted/overwhelmed by inf attacking from different directions.

I am using assault tank right now in a CM1 desert tourney with only 200m vis and lots of obscuring dust. To my dismay, I just had an engineer squad throw a satchel charge into what looked like empty space... But, just as the thing exploded, an enemy tank arrived just at the that spot and was KO'd. I didn't realize that even CM1 inf can predict.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

ISTR that was a tactic -- DK how frequent -- used against T-34s during the Budapest Uprising (phone poles rammed between the bogies by a brave group of Hungarians, followed by MCs on the engine compartment).

Finns found crowbars quite effective as well. not to mention more absurd things, like all sorts of traps (stuff like trees falling on tanks). effectiveness would of course be limited, even if during the 100+ days of Winter War Soviet tank losses even just on Karelian Isthmus were over 3000 pieces per official Soviet records.

T-26s and BTs are naturally quite different from T-34, though. would be hard, or at least the method would be highly impractical, to get this sort of T-34 with logs & molotovs:

RE: small arms fire vs armour, early war tanks didn't all have vision blocks or periscopes, so it might be remotely possible to hit the drivers et al. through a vision slit.

intensive small arms fire gives things like jammed turrets & ports etc, if you want technical effects.