Tank Commander Pilot Wounded

[dirtdart]

Deacon, it is not about shooting, it is about sighting. From the commanders view point you can see and aim higher up. Many times the gunners sight is masked by a berm, but not the commanders reticle. It allows a tank to conceal itself a bit better, reducing its risk to fire. 

[kvuo75]

Deacon, it is not about shooting, it is about sighting. From the commanders view point you can see and aim higher up. Many times the gunners sight is masked by a berm, but not the commanders reticle. It allows a tank to conceal itself a bit better, reducing its risk to fire. 

How is this an unfair advantage?  All GVs have this capability, don't they, so all should be equal in this respect.

[dirtdart]

Because not everyone has matching cover. Whe a guy can hit you, but all you can see is the pintle gun, well, that is an unfair advantage. 

[kvuo75]

I don't see how that's unfair. if they both had to just look thru gun sight, and one had better cover, that would be unfair too?

[Lusche]

Because not everyone has matching cover. Whe a guy can hit you, but all you can see is the pintle gun, well, that is an unfair advantage.  

A regular hull down position of one tank while the other has none would be an unfair advantage as well, by that definition.

And by the way, my initial question still stands, or did I miss the answer somewhere?

[WWhiskey]

Because not everyone has matching cover. Whe a guy can hit you, but all you can see is the pintle gun, well, that is an unfair advantage. 

panzer V panzer or M-4 V M-4,,, the tanks are all equal,, the driver that can't or doesn't know how to find cover and use the terrain around him is the difference!,, recon with your pintlegun before you roll up and over a hill and you will stand a better chance of surviving an encounter with another,, 
if you wish to shoot over the top of ridges,, learn what tanks have a greater drop in trajectory ,at what range and do so,,, then learn which ones fire flat strait rounds and engage them over the proper terrain .
If you need help I will meet you in the TA  and we can work on it,, that is my job here, and I like to help 

[Dragon Tamer]

Everyone knows our tank commanders are god, that is why they can't be killed. All they are missing is something sharp... 

























Found something sharp...

[dirtdart]

Lusche, There are two perspectives. One from the Commanders view which is about three feet above the top of the turret. The second is from the gunners sight. The gunners sight is located next to the tank barrel. The vertical separation between these two POV could be 5-6 feet depending on the tank. If I am shooting from behind cover at targets I cannot see because terrain obstructs my main gun sight, from the commanders view, then I am shooting at things I could not target IRL. This allow me to expose several feet less of my tank to fire, at the same time, because of the little ring and the fact this is a game, target quite effectively from what amounts to a guy standing up in the turret with Binos.

My argument is that for this advantageous position, there ought to be a risk. There are many time I can think of ricocheting rounds off the top of a tank because their hull was concealed by terrain and all that was exposed was the roof. Call it being able to shoot from a turret down position.

Just imagine a guy standing up holding binos while 75mm HE or AP is hitting their tank. That is not happening.

Yes, all players can do this, that is not the point. My point is that the commanders feature, without risk, is extremely gamey and encourages static tank gunplay because your probability of surviving is increased because you can expose less of your tank then you did in the past. I will see about posting some illustrations.

[Lusche]

Is there any particular reason you are ignoring my question?

 

[dirtdart]

It already has been answered in the thread. I did not know it was a bug, I just thought it was the status quo. If you have never been pilot wounded in a tanks, well, you should have spent more time in tanks (old model).

[Lusche]

It already has been answered in the thread.

I guess I'm just blind then  

I did not know it was a bug, I just thought it was the status quo. If you have never been pilot wounded in a tanks, well, you should have spent more time in tanks (old model).

But from that I conclude you meant "under the old Gv model" which would mean until about 2 years ago. And no, there were no regular "pilot" wounds in tanks during the time. The was an extrelemely rare bug that could cause that, but it almost never happend. It's similar to getting a kill credit for killing a manned gun on a ship, which also happens like one in a million.

For the record I had more than 1600 hours of combat time in vehicles with more than 3500 deaths under the old GV system in the LW. Literally hundreds of times I was doing the 'Tiger waltz', driving around in commander position and dodging bombs & strafers on Vbases and Ports (I actually preferred to up a Tiger in the face of CV plane attacks on ports than a Ostie/Wirbel). You would think I would have been wounded at least once during all that time...

[Tilt]

Seems to me that the tank commander should be vulnerable when in that position.

However the gv model requires that that view set be retained......

My preferred option would be that the position should (in the event of the "commander" taking a hit) lose its ability to traverse and fire the main gun.

We note on the 75mm M3 (where there is no commander position) this is the case already so the logic is consistent.


The effect would be to make the TC vulnerable to straffing and local HE hits from shell, bomb or rocket.

[TDeacon]

Seems to me that the tank commander should be vulnerable when in that position.

However the gv model requires that that view set be retained......

My preferred option would be that the position should (in the event of the "commander" taking a hit) lose its ability to traverse and fire the main gun.

We note on the 75mm M3 (where there is no commander position) this is the case already so the logic is consistent.

The effect would be to make the TC vulnerable to straffing and local HE hits from shell, bomb or rocket.

Purely from a game play perspective it would be a *bad* idea to have GV "pilot wounds", given the ubiquitous strafing and bombing aircraft (even in TT).  A major "fun" killer, regardless of its alleged merits WRT real tanks. 

MH

[pembquist]

Purely from a game play perspective it would be a *bad* idea to have GV "pilot wounds", given the ubiquitous strafing and bombing aircraft (even in TT).  A major "fun" killer, regardless of its alleged merits WRT real tanks. 

MH

What he said.

[dirtdart]

Yep, it would, and it would add realism. Let me give you another example of why pilots or crew need to be modeled so they can be killed or wounded. You are diving on a tank in an IL2, the mad man on the tank pintle gun can wound you, through armor, with a 7.7mm. You on the other hand are firing 37mm AP rds and machine gun fire, and that guy happily clangs away on his gun without risk. Unless you hit the weapon directly with the correct damage, you will not disable the pintle gun. Making a crew man who has to duck into a hatch is the sort of realism the GV model is lacking.

 Lusche, I can say I was wounded more than once back in the day, or the position became unusable, meaning the crew member was dead. The most common wounded guy I can remember was the driver, mostly I thought because I had my head all the way out of the hull. I thought this was a nice realism touch. Maybe I just had the bug, who knows.

Regardless, if the game touts realism as a prerogative, why are GVs allocated a "break" vice airplanes?

For the record, I am defending my point, so please do not mistake any of this dialogue as argument. Good discussion gents.