finalcut Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I noticed in the AAR Tank battle that most times when a Tank gets hit the crew is able to bail out.If I recall there was only one or two crew member casualties so far with most crews surviving the hit.Is this a realistic representation of the strength of Armored vehicles during the Second World War? Are the guys just getting lucky?Seems to me there should be fewer people surviving the hits these Tanks are taking.Just my Opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 finalcut, I think there are more crew casualties than you realize.. I just haven't highlighted them. For example, there were no surviviors from the Pz-IV I tried to rush across the open space that got nailed at the end of that turn. Additionally a lot of times there have been one or two casualties before bailing. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 For Op Goodwood 3rd Tanks lost over 40 tanks, but only suffered 18 killed, the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry lost 36 killed and again lost over 40 tanks, so it does seem crew survival can be pretty good and the game reflects this. P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finalcut Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 finalcut, I think there are more crew casualties than you realize.. I just haven't highlighted them. For example, there were no surviviors from the Pz-IV I tried to rush across the open space that got nailed at the end of that turn. Additionally a lot of times there have been one or two casualties before bailing. Bil Cool,glad you cleared that up,Was thinking these are some seriously awesome Tanks.lol.Can't wait till the end to see what the casualty count is.Great AAR.I would love to see some data on how many Tank crews were killed during the final year of the War,and what Tank had the best survival ratio of crews. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Its something of a danger to try to extrapolate one incident into a 'pattern'. For example, I've got a savegame saved just as a tank dual is about to start. Each time I restart at that point I'm at the mercy of the laws of chance. First time through my M10 got its shot off first and got a good penetration. Enemy Stug bails. restart: the Stug go its shot off that glanced off my gun mantlet. restart: M10 got holed first shot, the ammo explodes and everyone immediately dies in an inferno. restart: lots of shots traded, misses, partial penetrations, and popped smoke on both side. The only pattern I'm seeing is that there is no pattern. Except that each incident is entirely logical seen as individuals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 IIRC, average cas per KO'd Sherman was something like 1.8 men. IIRC, again, the numbers can be found in the No.2 ORS reports from NWE. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Cool,glad you cleared that up,Was thinking these are some seriously awesome Tanks.lol.Can't wait till the end to see what the casualty count is.Great AAR.I would love to see some data on how many Tank crews were killed during the final year of the War,and what Tank had the best survival ratio of crews. By the way I will be doing a final detailed rundown of casualties and kills for each tank at the end of the AAR. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finalcut Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 By the way I will be doing a final detailed rundown of casualties and kills for each tank at the end of the AAR. Very cool,can't wait. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Its something of a danger to try to extrapolate one incident into a 'pattern'. For example, I've got a savegame saved just as a tank dual is about to start. Each time I restart at that point I'm at the mercy of the laws of chance. First time through my M10 got its shot off first and got a good penetration. Enemy Stug bails. restart: the Stug go its shot off that glanced off my gun mantlet. restart: M10 got holed first shot, the ammo explodes and everyone immediately dies in an inferno. restart: lots of shots traded, misses, partial penetrations, and popped smoke on both side. The only pattern I'm seeing is that there is no pattern. Except that each incident is entirely logical seen as individuals. Are you using a 6 sided die or a D&D 10 sided die? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/10-sided_dice_250.jpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 restart: M10 got holed first shot, the ammo explodes and everyone immediately dies in an inferno.. 1.taking the designed for effect out of the equation and applying the physics of the simulative environment does that mean that the tank has an area designated "ammo" and therefore if a shell hits it will likely explode ? (curious to know how you code up for this when not using design for effect) ... 2. if it doesn't explode how do you decide why not ? 3. does the same then apply to fuel tanks too ? (i understand from the other thread re targeting that you cannot specifically target for these areas but target the centre of gravity). the mind boggles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Interior layout of vulnerable materials is like individual crew names. The game keeps track though its largely out of your sight until something happens to bring it to your attention. Like when the vehicle's aflame and rounds are cooking off - I understand the game is actually counting down the stored rounds as they explode one-by-one. I recall in CMSF the source of a common catastrophically exloding Bradley problem was traced to where in the hull the spare TOW rounds were being stored. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Because the system knows exactly where the round hits, it's vector, and what is on the other side of the armor... it's somewhat easy to predict the results of a penetration shot (or spalling for that matter). And this is where super-geeky ballistics stuff comes into play. When the round penetrates the degree of penetration, the characteristics of that shell, and the direction it is heading all determine what is damaged on the other side. Some of the penetrating hits Bil got in his AAR didn't have much "oomph" left when they got through. So they might have messed up something inside, but not all that much. Like a light wound of a radio operator. To give you an example of an opposite effect, the other day I was firing Flak36 (88mm) at a bunch of PzIVs and Shermans to see what happened at particular ranges (we were testing a theory). I saw one round clear through the front of a PzIV turret and land about 20m behind the tank! That's right, the sucker went clear through one side and out the other! Was it "designed for effect" to happen that way? HELL NO! The physics modeling said that's what would happen so that's what happened. And it was so cool to see In this case the driver and radio guys got out, but nobody in the turret did. And the tank did go up in flames. Experienced CM:SF players are used to seeing stuff like the above because so much of the Blue firepower is complete overkill for the lighter armored Red stuff. I even remember one example of an Abrams knocking out two BTRs that were parked next to each other. The round went straight through the first and into the second. Heck, I think it might have even gone through the second! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Because the system knows exactly where the round hits, it's vector, and what is on the other side of the armor... it's somewhat easy to predict the results of a penetration shot (or spalling for that matter). And this is where super-geeky ballistics stuff comes into play. When the round penetrates the degree of penetration, the characteristics of that shell, and the direction it is heading all determine what is damaged on the other side. Some of the penetrating hits Bil got in his AAR didn't have much "oomph" left when they got through. So they might have messed up something inside, but not all that much. Like a light wound of a radio operator. To give you an example of an opposite effect, the other day I was firing Flak36 (88mm) at a bunch of PzIVs and Shermans to see what happened at particular ranges (we were testing a theory). I saw one round clear through the front of a PzIV turret and land about 20m behind the tank! That's right, the sucker went clear through one side and out the other! Was it "designed for effect" to happen that way? HELL NO! The physics modeling said that's what would happen so that's what happened. And it was so cool to see In this case the driver and radio guys got out, but nobody in the turret did. And the tank did go up in flames. Experienced CM:SF players are used to seeing stuff like the above because so much of the Blue firepower is complete overkill for the lighter armored Red stuff. I even remember one example of an Abrams knocking out two BTRs that were parked next to each other. The round went straight through the first and into the second. Heck, I think it might have even gone through the second! Steve Once lost two T-62's to a shot from the side from an Abrams from about 1500m away. That 120mm packs quite the punch. Due to an unfortunate coincidence my tanks were lined up perfectly for that shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 And this is where super-geeky ballistics stuff comes into play. When the round penetrates the degree of penetration, the characteristics of that shell, and the direction it is heading all determine what is damaged on the other side. Steve Amazing stuff ! Its almost a shame this level of detail is hidden from the end user ... unless they want to investigative and understand the mechanics. Its a massive selling point IMO. I guess to a degree the in game results speak for themselves what made the result will be largely unknown unless you go looking , replay a lot too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Amazing stuff ! Its almost a shame this level of detail is hidden from the end user ... unless they want to investigative and understand the mechanics. Its a massive selling point IMO. I guess to a degree the in game results speak for themselves what made the result will be largely unknown unless you go looking , replay a lot too. I don't think something like this would presentable in a useable way. Imagine how long it would take to calculate everything CM does in a single minute turn. And even then you don't have hit percentages. All you would know is a round is leaving one location in another direction. Practice will teach you alot and random chance doesn't and shouldn't play as big a role as alot of people think. Also before you know it this forum will be covered with gunnery range results giving a lot of this vs this is good and this vs this bad in terms of tank combat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.