A few important questions about tank crew.

[[KG]Destaex]

A good well done multiplayer coop ww2 Tank simulator is something I have always wanted. A potentially good ww2 tank simulator. The only one out their at the moment that should be comparable to this is steel beasts pro PE and it's setting is modern. 
Tank Crew module available for early access. Only $69.99 US, that's a whopping $10 off the $79.99 standard price!! Honestly I was floored by the cost of this module but also very curious. Because with a price like this it could be a fully fleshed out simulator. I wanted to pose the following questions: 

 

a) Will the campaign be coop. I don't want another dry tank sim that gives very little reward. I don't particular want the standard sim canned missions, which have no soul, low production value that any mission builder player could make and don't really make you value your crew members either.

b) Will infantry and other support vehicles are or will be depicted. For example will the campaign have us run up against AT gun belts. AI assault guns and tank destroyers such as the STUG III G or su76. Infantry that unload from half tracks to support your advance and call targets. Sit on the back of your T34s. Minefields. You know. A simulation of what it would really be like to be in a tank in ww2. To know your crew members and possibly even some of your supporting infantry leaders. Not just a simple tank vs tank gunnery range simulator. Unlike in the air, the ground is probably a bit more complicated in terms of crew and supporting elements like infantry interaction as well as the variation of assets possible for a ground simulator. The infantry can see a lot more than you can especially in the more immediate vicinity and probably much more in ww2. Tank co-operation or not is a vital part of tank operations. I want to see that massed infantry coming towards me 

c) I know maps will be improved. But with most games I notice that the only terrain variation are in very long slow gradients? So basically you never get sharp ridges or micro terrain features to hide in. The maps are more drawn as over views of massive distance to both save computing power and the map makers time.

d) Are crew models inside the tanks intended to be made? Will we see how cramped and hard it is for them to move around in the tank and how they were actually posed for various actions?
e) Will cockpits be clickable? 

f) I  transfered my il2BOS to steam a long time ago. Should I wait to buy this module until it is available on steam?

 

P.S. I still cannot play il2 BOS unless a tinitus function for sound has been added like DCS and war thunder have? Hoping the tank simulator will be more friendly to my ears. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by [KG]Destaex

[Fercyful]

Seems it will be not infantry (running along the tanks) but today I already saw AT guns with crews, have to try shoot them with tank MG  will do now...

 

I hope that it will be some way to open the hatches without actually turning up (RALT+C) (can be a nice addition con move the "body" up and down with page up+page down and left the hatch opened until you decide to close it) 

 

Also hope it will be a way to no auto-reload and we can "give the order" with crew voice support (for more sim and less "automatic arcade" feeling)

 

And yes, really hope someday can have 3D crews for the tanks (like in the planes) No need for big reload/move animations just see the crew along you be there can be so nice. 

 

Thanks! 

[angus26]

22 minutes ago, Fercyful said:

I hope that it will be some way to open the hatches without actually turning up (RALT+C) (can be a nice addition con move the "body" up and down with page up+page down and left the hatch opened until you decide to close it) 

The only problem is that you’d end up looking like Kilroy.

It is a pretty neat idea though. 

[Fercyful]

No problem with Kilroy!  

[[KG]Destaex]

I will keep playing war thunder or combat mission cmx2 until they confirm the above I guess. Realism for me is not simply the machines. But the men as well. The tank simulator that treats infantry as just as important as the tanks that supported them will get my money. I really hope that it is this simulator.  

 

Good to hear their are At guns though. I wonder if the AT gun crews have the good sense to pack up, limber up to their half tracks or tractors or jeeps and run for it when they are discovered. See these are the things I am talking about. Being able to witness human reactions and the story of your crew. I don't think I am asking too much from what for me (adjusted for US currency) would be a $107 investment. That may be even more than Steel Beasts pro PE actually.

Tank sims that have gone before:

t34 vs tiger - great tanks but basic and buggy mission scripting. Has infantry but only very silly infantry. 

t72 Balkans in Fire - Very lonely on that battlefield 

Steel Fury Kharkov 1942 - I don't think I played this one. But hear it's missions were buggy trigger missions with vague briefings. Single only i think

Steel Armor Blaze of War - Don't have it but would like to get it. Single player only

Steel Beasts Pro PE - The best of the lot. But modern. Multiplayer and has infantry.

War Thunder - Good damage model but balanced and a lot of things inside the tank do not work realistically and neither do the match ups. although simulator mode and events makes it kind of a light tank sim.

Panzer Elite?

 

Problem with most of the above is no multiplayer coop campaign. Poor mission structure and production values. The tanks got the attention instead of the things surrounding the tanks that were just as important for realism and immersion.

41 minutes ago, angus26 said:

The only problem is that you’d end up looking like Kilroy.

It is a pretty neat idea though. 

Kelly's Heros is one of my favourite movies

Edited July 19, 2018 by [KG]Destaex

[303_Bies]

Haha, i remember this guy. But i think most WWII tank commanders looked like Kilroy during the fight.

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, Fercyful said:

Also hope it will be a way to no auto-reload and we can "give the order" with crew voice support (for more sim and less "automatic arcade" feeling)

I would kick my loader out of my tank, if I had to tell him after each shot to load another round. It is the only thing he has to do, and he definitely has to do it on his own. You only have to tell him, when another ammo type is needed. But you don't really want to ride through the battlefield with an unloaded gun.

They did this mistake in the flightsim, where your gunner in the 110 E2, the 111 H6, or the 52 empty the magazines and don't reload them.

1 hour ago, bies said:

But i think most WWII tank commanders looked like Kilroy during the fight.

And not only in WWII, I did it in my SPz Marder as well. You don't want to give an easy target by showing half of your body.

[303_Bies]

Yeap, in M1A1 there are even special positions of the seat to allow you just barely stick the head outside the hatch when standing straight comfortably.

[Voidhunger]

Steel fury and steel armor (but its too modern to me)from graviteam are still best. Tank crew was a must buy to me as I trust this team and i like ww2 tank sims. Feature what is not listed now can be added later like in Box.

 

Damned i cant wait for the panther. Last time i played with one was in panzer elite...

[[KG]Destaex]

Did Panzer Elite have infantry?

[Brano]

Yes it did. Steel Fury has them too. Here you are left with vehicle simulator.

[VRPilot]

you get infantry if you machinegun some AT guns. Soldiers start to run away, you can now machinegun even more stuff ?  

[Yogiflight]

4 hours ago, bies said:

Yeap, in M1A1 there are even special positions of the seat to allow you just barely stick the head outside the hatch when standing straight comfortably.

Standing? You surely can sit as well, right?

But in modern tanks it is not that important anymore, as with the optics they have today, the commander doesn't look outside his hatch a lot any more.

[303_Bies]

6 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

Standing? You surely can sit as well, right?

When you want to look outside the hatch you stand on your seat. It has 4 special positions: seating, standing with the head barely sticks outside the hatch during combat and normal standing outside the combat.

[Eicio]

And what about the ejection seat for the commander ?

 

[Thad]

Only British 00 agents get an ejection seat in Qs tanks.

[[KG]Destaex]

15 hours ago, Eicio said:

And what about the ejection seat for the commander ?

 

Good point. Is their an escape animation for crew exiting the vehicles?

[Voidhunger]

24 minutes ago, [KG]Destaex said:

Good point. Is their an escape animation for crew exiting the vehicles?

No and it probably never will. There is no bailing out animations even in graviteam games. Too much work and budget is tight.

But not animated crew bailing(running) out from the burning tanks would be nice. We have this in AT guns.

 

I hope that one day we can get simple hit texture on tanks like in Graviteam games. Its probably not so hard to do.

I really want to see where I and enemy was hit and with what gun

Lets hope that more and more people will buy TC and they will have enough money to make some cool stuff. Lets hope

[Fritz_X]

1 hour ago, Voidhunger said:

No and it probably never will. There is no bailing out animations even in graviteam games. Too much work and budget is tight.

But not animated crew bailing(running) out from the burning tanks would be nice.

 

Not quite sure if my eyes were playing tricks on me, but from what I've seen there actually might be an animation for fleeing crew members in the game.

 

When I tried TC for the first time, I attacked a German convoy in a KV-1, ignoring a mobile German flak nearby. As the flak kept hitting and disabling my tank (lost my right track), I switched to external view and witnessed how an animated soldier seemingly emerged from my tank and threw himself on the ground after running a few feet.

 

At first I thought the soldier could be a German escaping from one of the vehicles of the convoy I attacked, but when a second soldier showed up, it definitely looked like he was coming directly out of my tank.

 

After switching back to internal view I still could man all the positions though... So I might be wrong, afterall.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Fritz_X

[[KG]Destaex]

1 hour ago, Voidhunger said:

No and it probably never will. There is no bailing out animations even in graviteam games. Too much work and budget is tight.

But not animated crew bailing(running) out from the burning tanks would be nice. We have this in AT guns.

 

I hope that one day we can get simple hit texture on tanks like in Graviteam games. Its probably not so hard to do.

I really want to see where I and enemy was hit and with what gun

Lets hope that more and more people will buy TC and they will have enough money to make some cool stuff. Lets hope

The budget is too tight to simulate things at $80 US a pop? I don't want a range simulator for that. I want a sim that moves ahead of any previous ones.
It sounds to me that if the existing engine has pilots bailing out then they can do tank crew bailing out.

33 minutes ago, Fritz_X said:

 

Not quite sure if my eyes were playing tricks on me, but from what I've seen there actually might be an animation for fleeing crew members in the game.

 

When I tried TC for the first time, I attacked a German convoy in a KV-1, ignoring a mobile German flak nearby. As the flak kept hitting and disabling my tank (lost my right track), I switched to external view and witnessed how an animated soldier seemingly emerged from my tank and threw himself on the ground after running a few feet.

 

At first I thought the soldier could be a German escaping from one of the vehicles of the convoy I attacked, but when a second soldier showed up, it definitely looked like he was coming directly out of my tank.

 

After switching back to internal view I still could man all the positions though... So I might be wrong, afterall.

That evacuation animation sounds exactly like the pilot eject routine from the aircraft in this engine.

Edited July 20, 2018 by [KG]Destaex

[Voidhunger]

1 hour ago, [KG]Destaex said:

The budget is too tight to simulate things at $80 US a pop? I don't want a range simulator for that. I want a sim that moves ahead of any previous ones.
It sounds to me that if the existing engine has pilots bailing out then they can do tank crew bailing out.

That evacuation animation sounds exactly like the pilot eject routine from the aircraft in this engine.

Its not that simple. There are many hatches and many different tanks. Thats a lot of animation for soldiers. Thats a lot of work. One single animation cant be used imho.

But we have different animations for bailing out pilots in planes now, so maybe they will do something. I still think that they will make simple running animation of soldiers we have now from AT guns a vehicles.

[[KG]Destaex]

Voidhunger. When you are claiming your game is a simulator nothing is simple. Everything is complex. A tank is much less complex to simulate than an aircraft. So their should be some CPU cycles left for the rest of the things we need for ground combat. It may be a lot of work but it is what it is to make a tank simulator worth its salt. If you just want to do what other tank simulators I mentioned above have done or LESS then I don't know if it is worth it. This simulator is priced at double what those were when they came out except perhaps steel beasts pro PE. Which the military use and certainly has infantry and everything else needed to be in the situations the tankers would be in. I can play war thunder simulator mode for free with tanks only.

People buy things to experience what they have NOT experienced before. Not to do the same thing that previous games did with new skins. Unless that is that the previous game had already reached 100% of features possible.

I am sure the devs know what they want to do with the simulator and I am sure they are not aiming low. Fingers crossed as you say that they can get some good wave style Russian attacks going and that they do some nice infantry animations. After all. Tanks primary targets are infantry not tanks... but then this is kursk style tank vs tank 
There were still a lot of infantry at kursk. 
Kursk

Edited July 20, 2018 by [KG]Destaex

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, [KG]Destaex said:

Tanks primary targets are infantry not tanks.

This is not correct. The first target for tanks is enemy tanks, then AT guns. Always the most dangerous enemy is the most important and therefore first target. In WWI and at the very beginning of WWII the first target for tanks was infantry, but the nations, that stayed too long with this aiming, like France, Poland, England and the Soviet Union payed a high price for this fault. After the Allies reformed their armies, they won the war. Of course not only because of the restructuring and modernizing, but it was a big step.

[[KG]Destaex]

I understand that. However if you look at US doctrine especially with their tanks, they understood that 99% of the time tanks were going to face infantry to break through enemy lines. You don't try to go tank v tank. That's just asking for attrition. The Sherman was built to support infantry first and then secondary was to take on tanks. Tank Destroyers and AT guns were to take the tanks on. But of course on the eastern front it was a little different. Some still say part of the allied success on the western front later was that they did not focus on heavy tanks to take on tanks and instead concentrated on mediums in numbers for infantry across the front.

Edited July 20, 2018 by [KG]Destaex

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I have to agree with Destaex.

 

From it's conception the tank has served the purpose of countering and supporting infantry first and foremost.

 

In the First World War the tank was used to support infantry advances across NML and to cover tactical withdrawal from sectors that had become overrun.

 

In the Second World War the entire nature of armored warfare was based around supporting infantry and large scale combined operations. Naturally, tank on tank engagements occurred - even some of the largest scale battles in history - but they were there to support the mobilization and advancement of infantry.

 

A tank "sim" without some representation of infantry is no "sim" at all - it's a vehicle based shooter like WoT.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[Yogiflight]

24 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

In the First World War the tank was used to support infantry advances across NML and to cover tactical withdrawal from sectors that had become overrun.

 

24 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

A tank "sim" without some representation of infantry is no "sim" at all - it's a vehicle based shooter like WoT.

Yes and yes

 

24 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

In the Second World War the entire nature of armored warfare was based around supporting infantry and large scale combined operations. Naturally, tank on tank engagements occurred - even some of the largest scale battles in history - but they were there to support the mobilization and advancement of infantry.

Of course tanks support infantry, because only infantry can occupy terrain, but nevertheless, the main and first target were tanks. Only when there were no tanks around, they wouls attack infantry, simply as tanks are more dangerous for them. And therefore infantry can't be the first target for them. Even for today's IFVs, the infantry tanks, the first target is not infantry, but the enemy's IFVs.

But you are definitely right, the aim should be, to include infantry, in which form ever, into a tank sim. Without infantry it is as empty, as BOS would be without bombers. Just an egoshooter.

[Eicio]

2 hours ago, [KG]Destaex said:

 Some still say part of the allied success on the western front later was that they did not focus on heavy tanks to take on tanks and instead concentrated on mediums in numbers for infantry across the front.

 

IMHO the big part of the allies success was that 90 percent of the german war machine was turned toward the east.

 

The soviets had a lot of heavy tanks and they were effective.

I believe that your're right yogi since the english didn't even have HE shells in their tank, at least for quite a while.

[[KG]Destaex]

I meant when they used tanks on the western front. They did not focus their tanks solely on taking on other tanks. One of their main focuses was infantry support. The Churchill was very good at that as well. On the eastern front you still were very careful if possible to always keep infantry nearby even when taking on other tanks with tanks. I do wonder even on the eastern front though how comparatively rare tank vs tank engagements were given the comparatively small numbers of them. How  it may be more common to take on infantry. Even it it is just in the initial breakthrough. We tend to focus on the big tank battles but that are probably relatively few.

 

in any case I would say for a simulator it would be just as common to take on anti tank belts, infantry and terrain problems such as mud, snow and at burns or ditches as well as dug in tanks and hiding your tank in a barn. But Inexpect this game will focus on open flat field tank vs tank duels with little to no elevation or terrain features to test the driver and drive train sprockets. No recovery vehicle calling or formation organic aaa??

Edited July 20, 2018 by [KG]Destaex

[Eicio]

Every tank should be able to support infantry that's for sur, what yogi said, I believe, was that a tank should be designed to survive and win a tank to tank battle since it can no longer support infantry if it's destroyed.

 

The fact is that even the worse of tank would be able to support infantry, I mean the t-70 was a really bad tank but when you just have a rifle you're still helpless agaisnt it.

 

But as soon as you face AT guns or tank it's a different story.

 

That's why the tanks have to ne designed around beating the beast and not solely onto infantry support.

[[KG]Destaex]

The point though in the end is that this game badly needs well modelled infantry. I  don’t know how well the tanks will be modelled. But assuming they are modelled to study sim level like steel beasts then we kind of need an equivalent attention to infantry.

[DetCord12B]

56 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

I have to agree with Destaex.

 

From it's conception the tank has served the purpose of countering and supporting infantry first and foremost.

 

Yep. While a tanks purpose is to engage and counter enemy tanks, armor doctrine from WWII and today is that of infantry support.

 

Quote

A tank "sim" without some representation of infantry is no "sim" at all - it's a vehicle based shooter like WoT.

 

This has been discussed ad nauseam by the developers and Jason.

 

 

[Yogiflight]

My point was simply, infantry can't be the first aim of a tank, because when a tank faces infantry and tanks, it will always attack the tanks first, as they are the more dangerous enemy. And tanks were designed to fight other tanks more than to fight infantry, with some exepitions, like on german side the PzKw I and II, or the early PzKw IV with the short barreled 75mm gun. As I posted above, of course tanks are there to support infantry, by destroying enemy tanks. Tanks alone might win a battle, but they can never hold the conquered area without infantry support.

[Gunsmith86]

Tank killer hit list:

British Percentage Tank Losses for NW Europe, Italy and North Africa together

 

No1) Antitank Guns 29%

 

No2) Tanks 24,4%

 

No3) Mines 20,3%

 

No4) Self-propelled Guns  12,7%

 

No5) Other Causes 8,2%

 

No6) Bazooka  5,4%

[Yogiflight]

I suppose No1) was mainly the 88mm Flak.

A lot of mine kills. I wouldn't have expected that.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Yogiflight

[Gunsmith86]

No Number 1 are PAKs:

 

The 88mm in all of it's many forms was no where near the best anti tank gun (AT gun) of WW2, heck it wasn't even the best German AT gun of the war. The PaK 40 was an all round better gun whose slightly inferior penetration was more then offset by it's superior strategic and tactical mobility, easy of use, sustained RoF, concealability and ease of production.

They are cheap:

 

Easy to hide:

 

Easy to move

try this with a 88mm Flak gun!

 

 

Here is a good Post about the Pak 40:

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/AT-guns/7-5-cm-pak-40

and the Pak 36

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/AT-guns/PAK-36.php

[E4GLEyE]

my two cents is... in DCS ground forces you can fight infantry... but they are modeled horribly, and most of the time do not even have movement animations, so if we would only get something like that here, than i am okay with not having them at all... The guys running from tanks, vehicles are nice, but cannot be actually killed in Il2 TC. they only drop when they reach a certain distance. 

[Gunsmith86]

I hope we get more fixed infantry positions that can be targeted with MG.

[HagarTheHorrible]

The whole nature of tank warfare is " Manouver", it is avoiding direct confrontation, where possible, while supporting infantry in attack.  However powerful the Tank, it is only ever as effective, eventually, as the infantry that preceded, or follow, it.

[Thad]

Think "mutually supportive". 

[[KG]Destaex]

For what tanks were killed by I found this to be very interesting. The video is very recent. You will note that aircraft had very little impact on armour. You will also note that when the German RPG style weapons came into being late war the ratio of kills with them became huge. Something like 25-35% in spring 1945 against the allies? It seems data from the Russian front is much harder to come by at least in English?
I am however not worried about the infantry's effectiveness of killing tanks, but rather that without them you change the way tanks were used and protected. In short, tanks are most effective with infantry. This is what I want to see simulated. As a tanker you want to be wishing for your infantry when you do not have them. You want to fear going near towns or in towns where you can be ambushed by infantry. You want to be spraying possible infantry positions with machine guns... but can you spare the rounds? You want to button up close to those possible positions as you will get sniped at and only unbutton at long distances. THe infantry scouting ahead for AT positions etc. You don't just want to bound around bumbling into AT gun ambushes all the time. At the very least you want infantry that can spot and take care of them or tell you where to shoot. That is why infantry had phones on the back of shermans at some point. Sure you could go on the offensive with your tanks and nothing else, you could lose your infantry support in the break out or leave them behind. But then their are only limited things you can do. Which amount to long range raiding. This is all that tank crew will be able to simulate I guess. But not even that without enemy infantry regiments. Maybe just localised skirmishes. Rather than being part of large offensives.

 

I remember reading about Russian infantry using old AT-Rifles in numbers to take out tanks at close range as they rolled over the infantry lines. Not sure how true that was.

This begs another question. How many tanks can fight each other at once?

 

9 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

My point was simply, infantry can't be the first aim of a tank, because when a tank faces infantry and tanks, it will always attack the tanks first, as they are the more dangerous enemy. And tanks were designed to fight other tanks more than to fight infantry, with some exepitions, like on german side the PzKw I and II, or the early PzKw IV with the short barreled 75mm gun. As I posted above, of course tanks are there to support infantry, by destroying enemy tanks. Tanks alone might win a battle, but they can never hold the conquered area without infantry support.

 

I understand. The main point here is "when" a tank faces other tanks.

9 hours ago, DetCord12B said:

 

Yep. While a tanks purpose is to engage and counter enemy tanks, armor doctrine from WWII and today is that of infantry support.

 

 

This has been discussed ad nauseam by the developers and Jason.

 

 

I will be sure to check this out. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by [KG]Destaex