Tread hit spot? Realism vs. gamplay decision?

[Mormegil]

I'm one of those tread heads that have suggested/argued for more vulnerable points on the tanks. Specifically making the tank treads more vulnerable, damageable optics, turret ring...etc.

Of those I mentioned up there, it would appear to me that more vulnerable tank treads would be the easiest to implement, since they're already in. Right now, in order to damage the treads, you have to hit very low where they meet the ground from the flank.

You would think the exposed treads on from the front, or the road wheels* might be more vulnerable.


Then I realized, I've been looking at this from the hunters perspective. If I'm in a tank, it would be much, much easier to be disabled. I don't see a problem for this on large tank maps like Orel or even Arad, but it could be very tedious on a combined arms map. The ranges found on these smaller maps means I could probably aim and take out someones tracks 90% of the time.

I don't know what TW thinks about this, but I suspect this may be implemented as it is to not make tanking on combined arms maps tedious and boring. Imagine being disabled within a minute each time you go out with your tank.


Any opinions on this?


I could imagine an urban combined arms map, limiting it to 1 tank on 1 side would work pretty well. Sapers and PTRD users would be more effective in this case, and would offset the need for the other's sides tank while making it less frustrating for the tankers.


*I really don't know how vulnerable/durable road wheels were. I can't imagine a PTRD doing much to it, but I would think an 85 or 122mm round would screw those things up pretty badly.

 

[Oi!Oi!Oi!]

I'm all for detailed and more realistic tank damage.

 

[krylosz]

well disabling tracks was actually a tiactic russians applied against the superior tiger tanks. they'd team up in pairs, one shot at the tracks, and when he hit, the tiger would rotate with the other track still running and the second tank had a clean shot at the side armor. i'd like that implemented. that'd be extremely cool.

and there need to be more vulnerable parts on the tanks. they didn't implement sideskirts for no reason.

 

[Kurtz]

I don't know what TW thinks about this, but I suspect this may be implemented as it is to not make tanking on combined arms maps tedious and boring. Imagine being disabled within a minute each time you go out with your tank.

If they made the tracks easier to disable and nothing else, it wouldn't work very well with the current system. If you don't angle your tank then you're dead in one hit, if you do angle it your tracks are off in one hit. It would require a tweaking of how the penetration and deflection works in order to make it playable.

I do think it would be great if satchel charges blew the tracks off of tanks instead of destroying them. It would make them more realistic, yet still useful and could encourage teamwork between the tankers, sapers, and anti tank soldiers.

 

[Creutz]

I do think it would be great if satchel charges blew the tracks off of tanks instead of destroying them. It would make them more realistic, yet still useful and could encourage teamwork between the tankers, sapers, and anti tank soldiers.[/quote]

Spot on, totally agree.
I still think it should be possible to damage the tracks with PTRD on different target areas. but is should be hard.
Satchels should not destroy tanks if not placed directly on them but damage tracks.
As you said this would make the tank killing a team effort.
Wich would make it IMO more fun.

 

[Rak]

Now, that's why Otto Carius doesn't even mention "angling" in his book, but insists that a driver must be experienced enough to have the "best face of the armour facing enemy".

That's why angling in tank combat is so effective right now too.

Because RO doesn't model tacks damage and alike minor but important damages. So, a tanker IRL "avoided" that by facing it's best armor to enemy, not stupid angling that show all the vulnerable areas to enemy.

 

[Creutz]

Now, that's why Otto Carius doesn't even mention "angling" in his book, but insists that a driver must be experienced enough to have the "best face of the armour facing enemy".

That's why angling in tank combat is so effective right now too.

Because RO doesn't model tacks damage and alike minor but important damages. So, a tanker IRL "avoided" that by facing it's best armor to enemy, not stupid angling that show all the vulnerable areas to enemy.

You make a good point

If TW makes it more likely that you lose a track it would add strategic depth with new variables to consider.
As a tanker you have a optional tactical decision to make.
Do you wish to angle you tank or not
It`s up to the commander to make the decicion to meet the shell dead on with the strongest side Or risk track and other damage.

 

[Mormegil]

Now, that's why Otto Carius doesn't even mention "angling" in his book, but insists that a driver must be experienced enough to have the "best face of the armour facing enemy".

That's why angling in tank combat is so effective right now too.

Because RO doesn't model tacks damage and alike minor but important damages. So, a tanker IRL "avoided" that by facing it's best armor to enemy, not stupid angling that show all the vulnerable areas to enemy.

Except for the fact that it's been brought up several times in the forums that angling was taught and was done.

Here's a quote from Grottenholm from another thread

Hmmm... at least in the German wartime manuals for Panther and Tiger angling is recommended. The explanation is that it makes the armour effectively thicker, by forcing the enemy rounds to go through the armour a longer way...

Check it out:

http://www.panther1944.de/Panther/fibel/-9.htm

In the Pantherfibel on many occasions the Panther crews are warned that penetrating enemy tanks that are angled is very hard. For example for angled T34s it is recommended to shoot at the turret, instead. But also it is recommended to shoot HE at the tracks

http://www.geocities.com/tigerfibel/...mahlzeiten.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tigerfibel/...ahlzeiten1.jpg

Here in the Tigerfibel the "Mahlzeiten" (meals) are explained. From the viewpoint of the Tiger there are 4 directions where an enemy tank can not penetrate the armour, since it "seems" too thick to him - even with a 15cm gun. The times for the meals are 10:30 breakfast, 1:30 lunch, 4:30 teatime and 7:30 dinner. The recommendation is to always fight strong enemies into direction of these "meals". Even the communication inside the tank would be referring to these meals...

So YES, indeed in the war tank crews were supposed to angle their tanks.

It appears to me, then as now, there was a difference in opinion.

 

[jedinstven-o crni Wuk]

Except for the fact that it's been brought up several times in the forums that angling was taught and was done.

Here's a quote from Grottenholm from another thread



It appears to me, then as now, there was a difference in opinion.

thats the "theoretical" part ... the "practical" is a tad different ...


as said, tanks are not static objects, with data sheets like in books, thats why simulating them is in the same way complicated as infantry or any other real object. There come in a combat situation thousands when not even untold variables in to play (even the feelingsd of the crew!), how effective, the tank, its defence and offensive is.

Just a easy example. Woud the same Tiger, Wittman and his crew used, be even near as effective, with just different tank crews ? Its basicaly the same tank. I guess you got my point.

A usualy to weak tank, can disable a heavy one as well, the first in africa captured Tiger was dissabled, with a "lucky" shot that damaged the turret, so it woudnt move anymore, and the tank was abadoned and captured by brittish forces.

Though, this is of course very hard, probably even near impossible to add al in a game, but some things coud be improved (each track dissabled seperatly, or in general much more vulnerable to shells).

 

[The_Cook]

I am willing to give up my PTRD's amazing abbillity to penetrate tank side armor for one shot kills if it meant I could disable treads, shoot out optics, or even mess up the viewport the driver looks through. Heck I would give up my ptrd's amazing abbility to penetrate tank side armor for one shot kills if it meant I could consistantly shoot out the enging on a german AT or even blow out it's treads.

 

[Solo4114]

The big issue we run into is "hammers & eggshells". Adding more vulnerable areas makes tanks, well, more vulnerable.

Right now, frontal armor already seems fairly weak, given the engagement ranges we play at. Aside from maps like Orel, most tank engagements seem to happen at well under 500m, due to visibility issues. Take Barashka or Bondarevo. Given the terrain and visibility conditions on these maps, at most you're shooting at about 400m.

The more vulnerable locations added (IE: crew compartment), the more tanks are going to seem fairly pointless in the game. If they can be disabled, damaged, or outright destroyed so easily, why bother using them? What isn't being accurately represented, therefore, is the engagement ranges for tank combat. Arad, the previous king of "long range" tanking only seems to have about 600-700m long clear shots, and only a few of those.

Now, if TW is going to start creating truly large-scale tank maps that are both engaging to play (IE: you don't have to drive for 10 minutes to find an enemy), then modeling tank durability accurately will be great. But as it stands, I think there likely are some gameplay considerations that need to be taken into account.

Claiming absolute realism in your mechanics is pointless if your mechanics are being used in unrealistic situations. Know what I mean?

 

[Diamond]

I don't know, I think tracks would be taken off to quickly if you could just fire anywhere on the tracks.

Everybody would be firing at each others tracks and within minutes, the entire battlefield will be littered with disabled tanks.

 

[Solo4114]

I am willing to give up my PTRD's amazing abbillity to penetrate tank side armor for one shot kills if it meant I could disable treads, shoot out optics, or even mess up the viewport the driver looks through. Heck I would give up my ptrd's amazing abbility to penetrate tank side armor for one shot kills if it meant I could consistantly shoot out the enging on a german AT or even blow out it's treads.

A PTRD isn't likely to destroy the treads of the later war tanks, but on something like an APC it might damage them, I'd think. PTRDs would be better employed to damage turret rings (again, on lighter-armored AFVs), viewports and optics (like you said). Side armor on early-war tanks, though, should be vulnerable if the shot happens at the right range and angle. On mid-to-late war tanks, the PTRD should only be chipping the paintjob.

 

[Solo4114]

I don't know, I think tracks would be taken off to quickly if you could just fire anywhere on the tracks.

Everybody would be firing at each others tracks and within minutes, the entire battlefield will be littered with disabled tanks.

Followed shortly thereafter by dead ones. But yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at. If tanks are too vulnerable, even treadheads will start to dislike tank maps. I can't imagine Arad with tanks that can be really easily disabled or with destroyable optics, turret rings, viewports, crew compartments, etc. It's already pretty much a shooting gallery.

Like I said: if tanks are going to be truly realistically modelled, tank maps need to be as well.

 

[Dax02]

one big reason are for this angeling or non-angeling is, that a T34/76 was only dangerous for example a Tiger if he could fire at about 500 Metres or less, the Tiger was able do knock out a T34 at up to 1000 metres, so he had some room of 500 metres to kill him without any worry about get penetrated

An Carius and His Tiger comrades fought most against the very common T34/76 and KV1, so, they didn't really had to fear them

btW. In the Tank Fibels this differenc of penetrating distance is called "the Anti-G

 

[-|Ban|-Phox]

A sticky bomb would do it.