Crew survivability

Crew survivability (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Dogmeat -> Crew survivability (3/19/2002 2:34:53 AM)
I am wondering why when I destroy Shermans or half-tracks, the only thing that seems to be ejected are passengers. No crew. It doesn't seem to matter what I destroy them with, no crew are ever ejected. Was the survivability that bad for Shermans or half-tracks? Also, sometimes when they're hit, the vehicles show up as abandoned BUT there are no crew nearby? I mean, gun and mortar squads seem to abandon their weapons and show up as crew? Is it because the game is not creating crew troops because some max # of units have been reached? Which really don't explain why it's only the US armor that aren't generating crews. Note that I had shifted theater of operations from the Eastern front to North Africa to try out some German armor against Brit and American units. When playing against the Russians, destroyed units were ejecting crew. It should also be noted I always play hard battles...

Belisarius -> (3/19/2002 2:46:29 AM)
For the Shermans, it was about that bad... As for HT's and stuff: I think of it like the crew disperses when bailing out. An HT crew is what - 2 men? Just annoying to have around. If you mean enemy vehicles (sic!), you're not always able to see the crew before it heads off at breakneck speed towards it's own rear.... they're not inclined to stick around...

Fallschirmjager -> (3/19/2002 2:57:28 AM)
I cant remember what but something about the Shermans engines caused them to catch on fire very easily when hit. The Modern Russian BMP has the same problem, thousands of their men burend to death in the Chechnyan campaign.

nelmsm1 -> (3/19/2002 4:10:48 AM)
The Shermans ran on gasoline instead of diesel fuel. Gasoline is of course much more flammable then diesel fuel. That's why they were called Ronson's, after the cigarette lighter

tracer -> (3/19/2002 7:07:02 AM)
I saw somewhere that the Germans referred to Shermans as 'Tommy Cookers'

Lars -> (3/19/2002 7:45:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nelmsm [B]The Shermans ran on gasoline instead of diesel fuel. Gasoline is of course much more flammable then diesel fuel. That's why they were called Ronson's, after the cigarette lighter [/B][/QUOTE] This can't be the whole truth... AFAIK even the German tanks ran on gasolin, wich was one of thier major problems on the east front. /Lars

Fallschirmjager -> (3/19/2002 7:50:00 AM)
I believe it was also a matter of where the fuel was stored that made it burn so easily.

nelmsm1 -> (3/19/2002 7:58:55 AM)
Well I did a quick search on the net and it does look like the Germans used gas too. So it must have been in the way that the fuel tanks were configured. I do know that the were notorious for catching on fire if hit.

Warrior2 -> (3/19/2002 9:56:24 AM)
One reason Sherman's burned so easily has to be that an 88 shell could hit the front, go completely through the tank and out the rear. Wouldn't much matter where the gas and ammo was when that happens.

john g -> (3/19/2002 8:19:32 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager [B]I believe it was also a matter of where the fuel was stored that made it burn so easily. [/B][/QUOTE] I remember reading that german gunners would aim for the rear idler wheel when they had a angle shot at the tank, the round would ricochet off the wheel thru the lower hull armor and right into the fuel tank. You have to realize also that American gasoline was more flammable than German synthetic fuel as well. Light tanks (M5?) had aircraft radial engines and would burn 100+ octane avgas, at a time where 50-60 octane fuel was normal. You might be surprised just how bad gas was back then, my grandfather had a farm tractor dating back to the 40's (this was still running in the 70's), that had two fuel tanks, a tiny one for gasoline for starting the engine, and a larger tank marked fuel that was for low octane fuel for normal running. That was even at a time that farmers got priority on gas rationing to keep their equipment running. thanks, John.

Dogmeat -> (3/19/2002 8:33:52 PM)
Heh heh, I suppose so if it was a case of flammability and the vulnerability of the fuel tanks, but it would be hard to imagine that it was the case for more than 75% of the damage to Shermans and other US AFVs in the game. Here's another situation. I ambushed a Sherman from range of 2 with a Pz ATR. One hit in a vulnerable location and the tank was abandoned. Now you'd figure from that range, the tank being in the clear, that the German squad would've seen panicking US tankers fleeing for their lives. You'd also figure that those tankers would've hung around after rallying and retook their tank when the coast was clear, like the way my crew would do when they had to abandon their tanks. :) It's my guess that the minimum number of men needed before automatic dispersal is higher for the US (morale being bad for them) and the Shermans and other US AFVs didn't have large crew complements. A hit that takes out 1 or 2 crewmen would probably force dispersal after the morale check is done.

Fallschirmjager -> (3/19/2002 11:16:30 PM)
I read a story of how a sherman was hit by a 37mm in North Africa and it bounced around inside several times killing all the crew but one.

M4Jess -> (3/20/2002 4:12:36 AM)
In my 25 years of gamming I have never seen a Sherman die! What in the world are you guys talking about? M4:cool: :rolleyes: :p ;) :D :)

Don Doom -> (3/20/2002 4:26:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M4 Jess [B]In my 25 years of gamming I have never seen a Sherman die! What in the world are you guys talking about? M4:cool: :rolleyes: :p ;) :D :) [/B][/QUOTE] M4 have you been drinkin again!!;) or have you been out working on the car with the garage door closed again!;) :D :p

nelmsm1 -> (3/20/2002 4:36:00 AM)
I think he keeps his eyes closed when his Shermans are shot at. That way he can legitimately say he has never seen one die.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.53125