Page 1 of 1

Tanks vs. buildings -- too easy?

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:09 pm
by Fenris
It seems a bit too easy for tanks to smash through buildings. At the moment, rapidly smashing through a double row of buildings with a Sherman M4A4 is quite feasible.

There's no risk of getting stuck in the rubble, or getting the gun knocked out of alignment. There's also relatively low risk from infantry inside the house, since there's very little close-assault firepower -- e.g. no satchel charges, anti-tank grenades, or Panzerfausts AFAICT -- just the dedicated 'shrecks, 'zooks, PIATs and AT rifles. And the 'shrecks and 'zooks might have backblast issues when used from inside a building... not that I've checked whether that is modeled here.

(Note: if close-assault AT weapons ARE implemented, probably need to look at buttoning/unbuttoning, 360deg MG for TCs rather than just coax + hull front, Nahverteidigungswaffe, and the occasional remote-controlled mg).

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:17 pm
by Andy
remote control mg?!?!? :!: :shock: :shock: u psycho! lol. its the 1940s!

all the houses in firefight are single storey, so its very feasable for a tank to drive through it. not sure about the earlier ones, or the tankettes, but a shermans gun is quite well fixed to the turret.

as for infantry jumping a tank when its inside a building, if youve got a tank going flat out at you, your gonna get outta that building sharpish. and if you do wait, your gonna be waiting blind behind a wall or without a head after looking out a window into a few oncoming mg rounds, so the chances of you doing your hero act of throwing a mine of some type onto it is fairly slim.

not sure the 360 mgs for TCs would be too great in an infatry attack, being that you generally had to stand outside of the hull to use it. anything that would be on a ring mounting would generally have armour put over it making it a turret :roll:

on a similar note, how come arty and shells from tanks and FGs dont knock down buildings?
Honda CB250 Jade history

Remote MGs.

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:57 pm
by Fenris
It's not my fault if you're unaware that they did exist in the '40s.

on the Hetzer:

on some of the StuG IIIG as of 1944:

Search for 'Rundumsfeuer'. MG34, column base, periscope, drum magazine. Usable without exposing the crew. Somewhat primitive and scarce but existing and deployed.

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:11 pm
by TheKangaroo
The American B-29 Superfortress bomber had remote controlled machine guns, too, by the way.
There were quite a lot of things around then that you would not expect to be developed by the mid-1940s like rudimentary guided anti-tank missiles, which were tested by the Germans.[/i]

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:55 pm
by Andy
sorry, misunderstood what you meant. i had images of longer distance remoting, cant quite explain it. i know they had guns like that in the bombers, the one in the nose of a b-17 and all that.

guess its a case of what makes a gun remote controlled? going mostly off the bomber refrence, it being electrically assisted (to overcome wind resistance forces as in turrets), or being offset to allow clearer vision. its all a bit vague.

no offense intended
vapir no2 vaporizer

Terminology clarification

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:00 am
by Fenris
I overreacted, as well. My bad.

'Remote' in this case pretty much means that it's operated without a guy manning it from directly behind the gun, where presumably he'd be far more exposed.

As you noted, the 360deg mg frequently found on the top of the turret does expose the tank commander to substantial risk. Makes it chancy to use that one. OTOH, if the vehicle needs to fling some bullets in a direction other than in the same direction as the gun or the hull, it's there to be used... *shrug*

Among the other infantry AT weapons, the anti-tank magnetic mines and so forth are desperation weapons... but if there were engineer units, you might expect them to have some demolition charges that might be useful. Even if it just trashed a track... it was not unusual to abandon an immobilized but otherwise intact tank, if I've correctly recalled what I've read, as inside an immobilized vehicle was considered a dangerous place to be. Even a Molotov cocktail might be a problem at that point depending on the vehicle.

The fausts might also be useful if fired from an alley at a passing vehicle... also useful if there were fortifications e.g. foxholes, trenches, where it might be difficult to see a hiding defender until you're very, very close.

In any event, it's one of the larger differences I've noticed in Firefight vs., say, the Combat Mission games -- in the CM series, even non-dedicated-AT infantry have better close-assault means (still not great odds, with the exception of the Panzerfausts), and vehicles are at more risk of immobilization from bad terrain, or from damage other than total loss. I still find it slightly odd that a vehicle might smash with such ease through buildings, completely levelling them (maybe a 'ruined-but-not-flat' building type would be better), unless we assume that they're all of quite light material e.g. not brick.

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:52 am
by Andy
i find it always looks like the roof falls in, but the walls stay up, its a bit odd.

ever read and Sven Hassel books? they tend t suggest that everyone always has about 6 'T-mines' before they go out on a mission, it seems a bit unlikely, but the books are a great read, id definately recommend them.

sorry if my 'o's arent appearing, im having a little truble with that key at the moment.... :roll:
Honda CMX250C