Soviet tank crew survival.

[kevineduguay1]

Russian T-54 to even the T-80 and especially the T-72 are not famous for crew survival.
An American tank commander stated that durring the 1991 Iraq War, "The only Iraqi tankers that survived the battle were those that abandon their tanks before they were hit."
He also went on to state that there was a flaw in the Russians tank design. EVERY time they were hit the ammo and fuel exploded usually blowing the turret off and killing the entire crew.
My question is, if this is true then why is my digital battlefield overrun with FULL STRENGTH Iraqi tank crews.

The survival number for a T-72 is now 4. IMHO it should be lowered to 1 or 2.

[DRG]

If your game is overrun with "full strength" Iraqi tank crews the battlefield must be strewn with destroyed Iraqi tanks. I guess the disparity in the number of shots between the Iraqi side and the US side didn't amount to much in this case?

I've never see a game "overrun" with full strength crews. I'll have to keep an eye out for that. Sounds interesting

However " survivability " is not just crew survival. Crew survival is part of it. The survivability rating is a whole tank rating so the lower the number the more chance of even an "iffy" hit destroying it completely.

Feel free to edit your own OOB's and lower that number until T-72's light up like a BIC with every hit. That seem to be what you desire anyway. I won't be doing that with the issued game OOB's however because we already ran that experiment years ago and decided that 4 was just about right otherwise they were simply too fragile

Don

[kevineduguay1]

They did light up like BICS!

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:
They did light up like BICS!

So your big complaint now is that you think more of the crews should have been incinerated.

That's nice.

Have fun reworking your OOB's becasue I have no intention of changing ours

Don

[kevineduguay1]

This stuff is documented. What about your oppinions? You have yet to mention facts to back up your statements. If you do I'll shut up.
It sounds to me that you want to make a GAME. A little HISTORY would be cool too!

[Siddhi]

interesting point. the merkava tanks should have very high crew survivability but if anything less capacity to absorb damage then one would normaly think (with the engine in front and all)...

[Stirling]

Man. What's wrong with DRG lately?

He seems to be taking everything personally.

Being needlessly rude to your customers should be left for the likes of Derek Smart.

[Mobhack]

kevineduguay1 said:
This stuff is documented. What about your oppinions? You have yet to mention facts to back up your statements. If you do I'll shut up.
It sounds to me that you want to make a GAME. A little HISTORY would be cool too!

- This is a game.

- History is a fable, commonly agreed upon (Napoleon). If your view of history differs from ours, then by all means feel free to edit the game data to suit yours. We provide the tools. Edit your OOBS to fit your world-view. Change preferences to suit your opinions (If you think <insert army> needs to be supermen, then turn country training off and insert your values, for example, or add 10 experience to all formations or whatever).

We provide a basic game which most folks agree upon, but it cannot cover all points of view. Feel free to make your own edits, the game allows for this. Feel free to put your modified OOBS up for others to try out. Feel free to experiment to see what these mods actually do when played in the game.

The game is a democracy, and not a Stalinist dictatorship - we do not decree one set of data to rule (unlike many others . We allow you to roll your own, and to publish them.

Cheers
Andy

[Alpha]

so perhaps now kevin will understand that this IS a game and not reality...

[MarkSheppard]

Man. What's wrong with DRG lately?

Dealing with morons tends to do that. Kevin thinks
that there are no interactions between the various
ratings; this was revealed earlier by the autoloader
debacle.

Survivability is not how much of the crew survives; it's
how often a unit can survive good solid hits that penetrate
without going up in flames; to represent shells simply going
in one side of a vehicle and going out the other side without
hitting anything or exploding; it's happened in real life.

EDIT: This has also raised some interesting questions in
my head; should T-55/62 survivability be higher than
T-64/72/80 survivability in the OOBs?

The Russians actually switched to using uparmored and ERAed
T-55s and T-62s in Chechyna because they didn't have the
autoloader which placed the propellant in a location that
was easily hit and penetrated, versus the more modern -64
series tanks...I think they've rectified that problem
somewhat in the latest T-90 models, but it still remains
a weak point of the design.