Half-track Passenger casualties

Cross · #1 November 28th, 2008, 06:27 PM

I noticed that when a half-track gets destroyed, it’s typical for all passengers it’s carrying to become casualties.

Test

I set up a quick test with 10 M3 half-tracks loaded with ten man infantry sections.

Then destroyed them with 5.7cm AT guns.

Results

7 times out of 10: All 10 passengers became casualties.

The other 3 times there was 1, 2 and 3 passenger casualties

I did the test again:

7 times out of 10: All 10 passengers became casualties.

The other 3 times there was 0, 2 and 3 passenger casualties

Is this realistic?

I also set up tests with ten 30cwt trucks with ten passengers and then destroyed them once with MG fire and once with HE fire. In both tests the 10 man infantry squads/sections almost always lost just one man.

My intuition says we’re being a bit severe with the halftrack passengers. Especially if you compare the casualty rate to the passengers of soft vehicles that are destroyed.

I'm thinking it would be difficult to find historical data on half-track passenger casualties; but if anyone knows of any, I'd love to see it.

Solutions

If it's decided the casualty rate is on the high side, what are possible solutions?

1. Is there a way to ratchet down the level of passenger casualties when a half-track gets knocked out? Are the passenger casualties directly tied to the vehicles crew survivability?

2. Perhaps the passengers should bail soon after they come under fire, like they do when in trucks and other soft vehicles, and tank riders often jump off the tank once the tank comes under fire.
But I’d rather not have passengers bail out of a half-track under small arms fire. They’re safer in the half-track! I'd guess it can’t be coded to have passengers bail out only when under fire from AP rounds.

cheers,
Cross

RERomine · #2 November 29th, 2008, 04:42 AM

It does seem higher than usual, but on a track that takes damage, do the passengers take casualties if the track isn't killed? I don't recall if they do or not, but I know it's possible to get a penetrating hit on a track that doesn't hit anything vital because of the volume of space in a track without vitals. Basically a through and through shot, in one side and out the other. With an empty track, it will need some body work, but otherwise funtions fine. Now if there are passengers in the back, it would be a bit rough on them.

The point being, if tracks take damaging hits that don't hurt the passengers and then they take higher than usual casualties on a kill, doesn't it balance out? I get lots of tracks that take damage, but I've never gotten the passengers out to take a head count afterwards.

Mobhack · #3 November 29th, 2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cross

I noticed that when a half-track gets destroyed, it’s typical for all passengers it’s carrying to become casualties.

Test

I set up a quick test with 10 M3 half-tracks loaded with ten man infantry sections.

Then destroyed them with 5.7cm AT guns.

Results

7 times out of 10: All 10 passengers became casualties.

The other 3 times there was 1, 2 and 3 passenger casualties

I did the test again:

7 times out of 10: All 10 passengers became casualties.

The other 3 times there was 0, 2 and 3 passenger casualties

Is this realistic?

I also set up tests with ten 30cwt trucks with ten passengers and then destroyed them once with MG fire and once with HE fire. In both tests the 10 man infantry squads/sections almost always lost just one man.

My intuition says we’re being a bit severe with the halftrack passengers. Especially if you compare the casualty rate to the passengers of soft vehicles that are destroyed.

I'm thinking it would be difficult to find historical data on half-track passenger casualties; but if anyone knows of any, I'd love to see it.

Solutions

If it's decided the casualty rate is on the high side, what are possible solutions?

1. Is there a way to ratchet down the level of passenger casualties when a half-track gets knocked out? Are the passenger casualties directly tied to the vehicles crew survivability?

2. Perhaps the passengers should bail soon after they come under fire, like they do when in trucks and other soft vehicles, and tank riders often jump off the tank once the tank comes under fire.
But I’d rather not have passengers bail out of a half-track under small arms fire. They’re safer in the half-track! I'd guess it can’t be coded to have passengers bail out only when under fire from AP rounds.

cheers,
Cross

Trucks and other soft skins are treated as tanks - the riders are unprotected. If hit, the survivors jump off.

Armoured APC classes have the protected flag - the passengers are not affected by rifle and MG fire and splinters hitting the vehicle. They will stay in the vehicle.

However, a penetrating hit of a crew compartment with 10 or so men all packed close together will result in either a charnel house, or if the APC kill was at the front end with the engine being trashed, maybe not. In the one case probably not many will get out, in the other most maybe will. And APC kills in the game seem to go that way too.

WW2 APC, and early MBT ones too do not tend to have the survivability variable set very high. It affects the crew (not passengers I think) on a penetrating hit, and also affects the bail-outs, crew and pax included. Your question #1.

Your question #2. If we treated APC crews exactly as for soft skins and tank riders then all APC would be ditching the crews under a light barrage, or if infantry hosed them down with bullets. The result would be much gnashing of teeth from players!.

Cheers
Andy

DRG · #4 November 29th, 2008, 09:37 AM

The "survivability variable" is a measure of how well the VEHICLE survives a penetrating hit and then, once that calculation is made the code determines how it protects the crew and passengers and whether they get out or not.

Tanks that explode or burst into flames when penetrated get lower survial numbers than those that don't. That's what affects crew and passenger survival when those passengers are inside the vehicle

Many long time SP players still think of the survival number as crew/passenger survival but it's primarily about the tank

Don

Cross · #5 November 29th, 2008, 05:42 PM

Thanks for the clarification guys.

What you say makes sense. However, as a campaign player there's certain infantry sections that I like to protect from being wiped out.

Aside from tanks, I have two choices:

1. Load them into a soft vehicle

Vulnerable to every type of fire, but if the vehicle does get hit, even by artillery, direct fire HE or AP round, chances are the passengers will only suffer one casualty.

2. Load them into an APC

Immune to small arms and shrapnel, but if the APC gets a direct hit from artillery, HE, or an AP round, chances are all the passengers will be lost.

It just seems like a large disparity - for losses - between a KO soft vehicle and a KO APC.

For campaign players, it seems to make more sense to carry valuble units around in soft vehicles.

Maybe losses need to be higher for softies?

cheers,
Cross

RERomine · #6 November 29th, 2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cross

2. Load them into an APC

Immune to small arms and shrapnel, but if the APC gets a direct hit from artillery, HE, or an AP round, chances are all the passengers will be lost.

Typically, that's the case, but I had two tracks popped by a 6pdr ATG today and passengers in both got out without casualties. They did need a bit of rallying afterward, but they got right into action.

I still haven't found that stupid 6pdr ATG!!!

iCaMpWiThAWP · #7 December 1st, 2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cross

Thanks for the clarification guys.

What you say makes sense. However, as a campaign player there's certain infantry sections that I like to protect from being wiped out.

Aside from tanks, I have two choices:

1. Load them into a soft vehicle

Vulnerable to every type of fire, but if the vehicle does get hit, even by artillery, direct fire HE or AP round, chances are the passengers will only suffer one casualty.

2. Load them into an APC

Immune to small arms and shrapnel, but if the APC gets a direct hit from artillery, HE, or an AP round, chances are all the passengers will be lost.

It just seems like a large disparity - for losses - between a KO soft vehicle and a KO APC.

For campaign players, it seems to make more sense to carry valuble units around in soft vehicles.

Maybe losses need to be higher for softies?

cheers,
Cross

lets think a bit, when on truck, you have plenty of options to bail out, not a single door that can get blocked, so, when in a burning apc, it may be harder to bail out than to hop out off a truck i think

Cross · #8 December 1st, 2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

lets think a bit, when on truck, you have plenty of options to bail out, not a single door that can get blocked, so, when in a burning apc, it may be harder to bail out than to hop out off a truck i think

Hi Icamp,

Don't forget we are talking about open topped halftracks, compared to soft vehicles, cars, and trucks of which many are enclosed.

cheers,
Simon

RERomine · #9 December 2nd, 2008, 05:06 PM

IMO, a half-track should protect the passengers more than other vehicles unless someone gets something in the back of the track, i.e. grenade, artillery or mortar round, machine gun fire from a height. There, you might have rounds/shrapnel bouncing around in the track when it would have passed through the sides of a soft skinned vehicle. More casualties as a result.

Since most APCs are close topped these days, I figure the militaries of the world have decided open tops are a risk as well. Overall, I agree with Cross that casualties from tracks should be lower than that of soft skinned vehicles. I tried looking for reports on the subject, but couldn't find any. Not even sure there are any studies on the subject. I'm not worried about it from a game perspective, however. It's just something that is and I deal with it.