Tank bail out and repair

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

Hey all, was just in Coconut Dynamic campaign Expert and after tank busting from the sky I decided to jump into one..

 

Tank gameplay is fun, however I hope in the Tank crew dlc they will address a few things. Such as ability to baIL out of your flaming tank. Also possibility to repair/ field repair?

It's not like it takes 5 min to get to your destinaton, if you get damaged you should be able to at least fix things, like treds, to keep you going..

 

Maybe even dig in and set up a line of defence.

 

Also, are there any 4k skins for tanks?

 

What yall think????

[Finkeren]

I think a bail out function is more or less a given. Repair function is a bit more iffy. It would definitely need to be implemented in a way that makes sense and doesn't ruin immersion.

 

Digging in sounds like a very cool idea, should absolutely be considered.

 

What I'm really hoping for is a deeper and more detailed radio comms system than what we currently have.  

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

As far as a "simple" repair like treads goes I read it could take half a day to remove, repair and replace a tread, with repair depot mechanics, not a few tank crew under fire. Anything else to repair the tank crew would not be able, or not know how, to repair.

True digging in required possibly days of preparation, but could be implemented as fortification areas you could drive into, but would have to be areas placed on the map beforehand. 

Bail out definitely is needed though.

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

I think a bail out function is more or less a given. Repair function is a bit more iffy. It would definitely need to be implemented in a way that makes sense and doesn't ruin immersion.

 

Digging in sounds like a very cool idea, should absolutely be considered.

 

What I'm really hoping for is a deeper and more detailed radio comms system than what we currently have.

Yes comm's, I forgot to mention this.

 

I was thinking air to ground comms and between tanks if you're in a squad or platoon, formations, movement, sector scans and such

[Finkeren]

One more thing that absolutely needs to be properly implemented is the fording of rivers and streams and specifically: Which tanks are able to do it and to what depths.

 

Lack of proper sealing is exactly what did in the Panther tanks at Kursk, when the few of them that survived the initial march attacked across marshy land, got stuck, pulled out under cover of night just to discover that they all had water in their transmission and were rendered unusable before they had a chance to make an impact on the battle.

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

Most russian tanks did not have radios until later in the war, and tanks ran on a different frequency than planes, so intell had to be sent up the chain of command, and then back out to the planes, at which point it was too old to be of much use. Not until the americans put air spotters with aircraft radios in tanks during the drive across France was any sort of close comms possible. However, better comms for planes and tanks would be nice.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

My counter idea to repair because I think it is unrealistic unless you want to wait an hour or whatever is..

 

To let the player control his tank and 4 other AI ones as the Captain or whatever. If your tank gets knocked out you switch to another one. If the one that you initially nailed out of can be repaired it will try and catch up.

[1./KG4_OldJames]

As far as a "simple" repair like treads goes I read it could take half a day to remove, repair and replace a tread, with repair depot mechanics, not a few tank crew under fire. Anything else to repair the tank crew would not be able, or not know how, to repair.

True digging in required possibly days of preparation, but could be implemented as fortification areas you could drive into, but would have to be areas placed on the map beforehand. 

Bail out definitely is needed though.

 

absolutly not, it used to take me ( and crew of one other) 20-30 minutes to change a track.

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

Just spit balling here, what if they implemented "extra parts" as a selectable mod, it could add weight to the tank making it slower and allow for 1-2 field repairs that take maybe 2-3minutes of in game time each. Just a thought... I'm sure it's too unrealistic for many but it could help create a bit of balance between fun gameplay and simulation.

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

absolutly not, it used to take me ( and crew of one other) 20-30 minutes to change a track.

I stand corrected. If you have actually done it, then I'll believe you.

We are, however, talking about WW2 technology and soldiers that were predominantly not mechanically inclined. It was a marked contrast between the motorized German army and the US army that almost every US soldier could fix a vehicle, but  hardly any other nations soldiers could. 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Tank repair, like aircraft rearm and refuel, is a mechanic that can cause discontent because it is almost impossible to reconcile with reality in the context of the game. 

 

Therefore, I think the only solution is to give control to mission designers. Then, everyone could adjust it to their liking. For example, the 'realistic' crowd could have 20 minute track repair while 'tank-Quake' gets 30 second track repairs. 

 

Even give an option to disable repairs entirely, or restrict them to certain locations on the map. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

That sounds pretty good Mitthrawnuruodo.

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

I can't imagine many people wanting to wait 20 minutes in a videogame (sim or not) while they wait to repair an aircraft/tank, not gonna happen, at that point people will learn how to game it by either bailing or suiciding or simply disconnecting and reconnecting. Especially when you take into account the avg length of a multiplayer server along with the fact that if you're tanking with a squad chances are that your squaddies will not be happy just sitting around waiting for you for 20 in game minutes and most likely will push on without you meaning you'll be 20 minutes behind the action by the time you catch up. That's just poor gameplay.

 

Once again, the key will be finding a balance that the player can stomach.

[TAAC_Blue]

I stand corrected. If you have actually done it, then I'll believe you.

We are, however, talking about WW2 technology and soldiers that were predominantly not mechanically inclined. It was a marked contrast between the motorized German army and the US army that almost every US soldier could fix a vehicle, but hardly any other nations soldiers could.

I would argue the exact opposite.

 

One of the easiest things to do on a tracked vehicle is throw track. Im sure every armored crewman learned how to rectify this issue in every nation, not just the US Army.

 

And I dont believe that US soldiers were more mechanically inclined versus their German counterpart either. Vehicles were much easier to work on then vs today. Pop the hood on a Willys Jeep and again on a brand new Jeep and you will understand what im talking about.

Edited January 19, 2018 by II./JG77_BlueCordBandit

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

US soldiers were more mechanically inclined than other nations due to the large amount of cheap automobiles that many more Americans had and drove many more miles (and chances to break down) than Europeans. Almost every US soldier had a car in civilian life and worked on it himself, not many average Europeans had a car. Also, an American infantry unit had 4 times as many vehicles than a German fully mechanized unit. Captured German soldiers were stunned at the number of vehicles the US army had and at how every one drove everywhere. Again, just what I have read of 1940s contemporary accounts.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Cathal_Brugha

[hames123]

One more thing that absolutely needs to be properly implemented is the fording of rivers and streams and specifically: Which tanks are able to do it and to what depths.

 

Lack of proper sealing is exactly what did in the Panther tanks at Kursk, when the few of them that survived the initial march attacked across marshy land, got stuck, pulled out under cover of night just to discover that they all had water in their transmission and were rendered unusable before they had a chance to make an impact on the battle.

Quite a few were dried off and had an impact. The Panthers suffered heavy losses to the Soviet AT guns and mines though.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Panthers at Kursk failed mainly because the type was pushed to the front before it was properly sorted, in essence the crews were driving (or trying to) production prototypes.

Then add the fact that the German tanks by and large were overly complex and difficult to maintain in the field and you have a recipe for disaster. It doesn't matter how good your machine is on paper if it spends long periods of time down due to repairs.

[OrLoK]

As with all these contentious issues, the ability to repair/rearm should be toggleable and configurable by the mission maker/server host so we can all play tge way we wish.

 

Refuel and rearm is on my wishlist.

[unreasonable]

Most russian tanks did not have radios until later in the war, and tanks ran on a different frequency than planes, so intell had to be sent up the chain of command, and then back out to the planes, at which point it was too old to be of much use. Not until the americans put air spotters with aircraft radios in tanks during the drive across France was any sort of close comms possible. However, better comms for planes and tanks would be nice.

 

Not quite - the RAF Armoured Car Squadrons were directing air strikes as FACs in 1942-43 in the Western Desert.

 

See "Through Adversity" a history of the RAF Regiment, p 79.

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

Not quite - the RAF Armoured Car Squadrons were directing air strikes as FACs in 1942-43 in the Western Desert.

 

See "Through Adversity" a history of the RAF Regiment, p 79.

Interesting, unreasonable, thanks for the reference.

Was this something they did for a certain campaign/operation, and do you know if they continued after the Desert Campaign?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

US soldiers were more mechanically inclined than other nations due to the large amount of cheap automobiles that many more Americans had and drove many more miles (and chances to break down) than Europeans. Almost every US soldier had a car in civilian life and worked on it himself, not many average Europeans had a car. Also, an American infantry unit had 4 times as many vehicles than a German fully mechanized unit. Captured German soldiers were stunned at the number of vehicles the US army had and at how every one drove everywhere. Again, just what I have read of 1940s contemporary accounts.

Yes and no. You were good until “Almost every US soldier had a car in civilian life.” Most had experience with vehicles - including farm and other commercial equipment. A much higher percentage owned vehicles than their counterparts abroad but the quoted portion is a gross exaggeration. We didn’t get a car in every driveway until the mid fifties. There was a higher level of mechanical expertise and, just as importantly, aptitude coming into the US armed forces during the war but it is also true there was an exponentially higher level of skilled expertise resulting from the war/job training as well. I suspect the latter is true for our contemporaries, though, I have not studied it with any depth.

Edited January 25, 2018 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[BlitzPig_EL]

Registered motor vehicles in the US by year...

 

1900: 8000

 

1920: 8,531,522

 

1940: 27,372,397

 

1950: 40,190,852

 

1960: 61,419,948

 

I'll stop there, but you get the point.

 

Figures are from the US Department of Transportation.

 

I have them to hand because I am giving a lecture at the local historical society in September about how the automobile changed our leisure/free time availability, and improved our standard of living in the years following the Great War.  I work for an automobile museum, and in general have been a "car guy" since I was riding a tricycle...

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

Yes and no. You were good until “Almost every US soldier had a car in civilian life.” 

I should have said "more" instead of "almost every". I'm not trying to quote a certain portion.

 

Most had experience with vehicles - including farm and other commercial equipment. A much higher percentage owned vehicles than their counterparts abroadThere was a higher level of mechanical expertise and, just as importantly, aptitude coming into the US armed forces during the war but it is also true there was an exponentially higher level of skilled expertise resulting from the war/job training as well.

So more often US soldiers cold fix their equipment as they knew how instead of needing to wait for a mechanic.

[unreasonable]

Interesting, unreasonable, thanks for the reference.

Was this something they did for a certain campaign/operation, and do you know if they continued after the Desert Campaign?

 

The Western Desert was where they learned how to do it - and the fact that there were a couple of armoured car units that were actually a part of the RAF I am sure helped immensely with organizing the required radio net. The overall concept of central ground control would be entirely familiar to the RAF - used in the context of the BoB - so making the imaginative leap to air power directed by dispersed FACs is not such a big step.   Use of FACs continued and became more organized and integrated with the Army, used in Italy: by the Normandy campaign the system was fully developed with the FAC's attached to Army units calling up "Cab ranks" of Typhoons.  I am sure the US did something similar although I do not have details. Whether they learned it from the RAF or not I do not know, NIH being a thing hard to overcome for every nation and service, but given that the overall Air Commander for Overlord was British no doubt if the USAAF had not already started to develop the FAC context, Leigh-Mallory would have made sure that they knew all about it.

 

They did not learn it from the Germans, who planned airstrikes in close coordination with the ground offensives using liaison officers, but did not AFAIK ever use FACs in direct contact, whatever German propaganda films implied.

Edited January 26, 2018 by unreasonable

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Registered motor vehicles in the US by year...

 

1900: 8000

 

1920: 8,531,522

 

1940: 27,372,397

 

1950: 40,190,852

 

1960: 61,419,948

 

I'll stop there, but you get the point.

 

Figures are from the US Department of Transportation.

 

I have them to hand because I am giving a lecture at the local historical society in September about how the automobile changed our leisure/free time availability, and improved our standard of living in the years following the Great War. I work for an automobile museum, and in general have been a "car guy" since I was riding a tricycle...

I’d say we are all generally on the same page now......

[1./KG4_OldJames]

I stand corrected. If you have actually done it, then I'll believe you.

We are, however, talking about WW2 technology and soldiers that were predominantly not mechanically inclined. It was a marked contrast between the motorized German army and the US army that almost every US soldier could fix a vehicle, but  hardly any other nations soldiers could. 

to elaborate on my earlier correction, I did not used to crew a Tiger, which may have been a bit more problematical with those overlapping wheels, and whatnot.

[Finkeren]

My knowledge about WW2 tanks is fairly superficial, but I have read somewhere (don’t remember where, so nothing reputable) that repairing and changing tracks on the T-34 was extremely simple and something the crew was expected to be able to do in the field (the tank having come out of the BT line of development where quickly detatching the tracks to drive on road wheels on marches was an integral part of the design) But for KV and IS tanks a snapped track meant that the tank was out of action until a support vehicle could come along and provide assistance, and even then, it was a difficult operation.

[Mesha44]

I think most of us are forgetting that in most cases when you loose a track, or tack other mobilizing damage you are under fire by the enemy.  The crew is not going to stick around.  For example, Wittman in his Tiger I got hit by a British 6 lbr gun on the flank.  The crew did not stop to check if the vehicle could be repaired, the got out of the area.

[56RAF_Roblex]

I think there is an error in logic in saying that because fewer Europeans owned private cars then their trained tank crew would have less idea of how to repair the vehicle they have trained in and pretty much 'lived' in for years. You might as well say that because more Americans owned hand guns & rifles then their artillery were the only ones capable of fixing problems with their cannons in the field      I have read in books and seen in interviews tank crews talking about being left behind while they repaired their tank-tracks in a wood or roadside or the middle of a field so it was obviously possible with at least some models.

Edited February 1, 2018 by 56RAF_Roblex

[HenFre]

 

 

the tank having come out of the BT line of development where quickly detatching the tracks to drive on road wheels on marches was an integral part of the design

 

Why would they detach the tracks when driving on marches? And how would they move as the drive wheel no longer was in contact with the ground? 

[unreasonable]

Why would they detach the tracks when driving on marches? And how would they move as the drive wheel no longer was in contact with the ground? 

 

wiki he say: 

 

The BT tanks were "convertible tanks". This was a feature designed by J. Walter Christie to reduce wear of the unreliable tank tracks of the 1930s. In about thirty minutes, the crew could remove the tracks and engage a chain drive to the rearmost road wheel on each side, allowing the tank to travel at very high speeds on roads. In wheeled mode, the tank was steered by pivoting the front road wheels. Soviet tank forces soon found the convertible option of little practical use; in a country with few paved roads, it consumed space and added needless complexity and weight. The feature was dropped from later Soviet designs.

[Porkins]

Is it actually planned for the tank expansion for the crew to be able to get out of the vehicle and move around on foot? Because that would be awesome if it is the case. 

[1./KG4_OldJames]

You are thinking of Call of Duty