"Tanks Supression Result" Topic

Hello gamers, I have a 'reality check' question and it's not really about any specific rule system, but rather how rule systems should apply the concept of supression of an AFV in combat. And to clarify, the vehicle scale I'm talking about is 1:1 or 1 miniature = 1 AFV.

Given this example: a tank is struck by anti-tank fire but the shot bounces without any damage. Does it make sense that the AFV might be supressed as a result. And if so, should the vehicle being supressed lose it's next action recovering from supression? Or alternatively maybe the tank takes it's next action with a penalty?

Supression of an infantry unit seems pretty clear in that taking fire causes limits their ability to return fire or move as they would normally have to duck or take cover from the incoming fire.

In a tank, they are already under cover and the question is would taking a hit that bounces possibly render then unable to return fire or take other actions?

Given this example: a tank is struck by anti-tank fire but the shot bounces without any damage. Does it make sense that the AFV might be supressed as a result.

The concept that anti-tank fire bounces "without damage" is the core point of contention, in my reading.

Most rules use a couple of points of test of what happens when an anti-tank round strikes. The testing may go into detail, or stay in generalities depending on the rules.

Test 1: does the round penetrate?

If yes: Test 2 is to see if it destroys the tank, if the tank brews up, if crew is killed.

If no: Test 2 is to see if some primary function of the tank is disabled -- is the tank tracked, is the turret jammed or the optics destroyed, is the radio destroyed, etc.

That tells us the permanent damage done.

But in fact, when a round strikes armor all kinds of things happen. Flaking inside the tank, or sudden movement resulting from the shock may injure crew members. Sometimes it is necessary to replace someone in a role. The shock may disorient crew members, and they need some time to recover their wits. Sometimes it just knocks hands off of equipement, or mis-aligns some instruments, or knocks the tank out of gear or stalls the engine. Sometimes it knocks off the antenna, and someone needs to recognize that the radio isn't working, figure out why, and open the hatch to install the replacement antenna.

So how much detail do you want? My preference is to keep to the issues as the company commander might observe them.

The company CO I would not know that the gunner in the second tank in the first platoon got his eye jammed against the direct vision site eyepiece and has pulled his head back and is rubbing his eye in response to the pain and to try to recover his ability to focus. All I would observe is that the tank is not shooting. And that, after a bit of time it starts shooting again. So for me, I am fine if the rules abstract all of the details into a tank that is suppressed, but will recover in a short time.

Just my thoughts. Your tankage may vary.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1 and occasionally Mk 2)

Rather than 'suppressing' actions, usually something like that is more of a motivator to move to a place of better cover and concealment or to fire back against the attacker.

Infantry merely going to ground and being one with the dirtis undertsandable. Maybe calling that suppressed makes sense.

A tank can't do that and if anything, is encouraged to either run or shoot back.

The AT gun that hit the tank clearly sees your tank, they have the range and elevation, and they are probably busy shoving another shell into the breach of their gun. My take is that at least part of the "Suppression" result is the tank crew desperately trying to avoid being hit again by the second shot. Whatever the tank was trying to accomplish suddenly became a secondary priority.

Grelber

My take is being hit is that it's going to cause some sort of reaction by the crew. First, the crew probably doesn't know if the round was a 37mm door knocker or a glancing blow from an 85mm cat killer. I like the way Battlegroup WW2 does it:
the crew usually recovers and is able to act on its next turn. But on a 2, it fails and bails, treat tank as destroyed. Or on a 12, they get incredibly brave and is able to react immediately.

As noted, the crew doesn't know what hit them, or how many more 'bad guys' are out there. Based on a wide variety of factors, the shot that bounces may prevent immediate follow-up from the tank that was hit. It depends how granular you want to get.

Interesting discussion. Another factor will be visibility from within the tank. A "buttoned up" tank can see very little. And of course even small arms can accomplish that,

Depends on the ground scale and what you are trying to model, "suppression" may just indicate the vehicle moving to cover or popping a local smoke screen to hide. Maybe it caused some internal damage or wounded someone? Engine stalled loader dropped the round, gunner banged his head as temporarily unconscious? Who knows.

Irl, it was pretty common for crews to simply bail the second they were hit, as it indicated they had been acquired. Not a healthy place to be on the modern battlefield.

I'm not sure I'd count all hits from AP as suppressing a vehicle though, 'tank shock' was an uncommon result in Squad Leader. It is different if you are modelling the vehicle buttoning up under artillery or small arms fire.

+1 Grelber, its definitely the crew looking out for their own survival than achieving their objective, even if it means just moving a bit to break the aim of the AT gun.

I think the effects are likely inversely proportional to crew quality. Inexperienced lower quality late war German and early soviet tank crews frequently reacted very slowly.

I also think crews frequently did have a reasonable understanding of how dangerous an attacker was. in desert warfare there are accounts of British crews bailing as a 88mm round missed. The assumption being the next one was going to hit and total their tank.

Now there is clear historic evidence that some Sherman usits only shot HE at Tigers. This was because there were almost always more shermans than Tigers in an encounter and that the Sherman had a high rate of fire. So a tiger being hit by multiple HE rounds would be noisy to the point of being extreemly painful, visibility would be reduced and so returning fire would be impractical, and eventually some vital external bit would be damaged, sights, arials etc. The Shermans (short 75mm) never intended to kill the Tiger but drive it off and call for specialist support, like air, to kill it.

I did read where the Germans forced a T34 crew to abandon theirr tank unded rapid 30mm AA rounds as the noise was intolerable.

So like has been said how much detail do you want?

One British driver won a much deserved medal as woulded he drove the tank out of harms way when the turret was hit.

In our rules we go part way, if you are hit you can either try and return fire if you have the target spotted or retire, possibly with smoke if you have dischargers (Brits). No so with smoke generators as they are too slow for a very rapid responce. Its what detail you want to include.

Besides experience and training, don't forget the crew and the trust tehy have in their vehicle.

A crew of a KV in 1941 would be just about irrelevant about anything. Equally a crew of a Churchill might have a little more faith in the reliability of their vehicle than the crew of a Cromwell or Sherman.

ok that helps give me some perspective. Thank you!

As suggested above there is some indication of Allied tanks hammering the opposition with HE to distract and disconcert.
Im thinking of David Render's Sherwood Rangers memoir where he tells us his squadron commander got them to do that while a Firefly was moving up to finish the job.
Panzer crews are only human.

I dont recall seeing rules that would bring that to life, usually its all about dicing to hit and penetrating.

I dont recall seeing rules that would bring that to life

In 'What a Tanker' non penetrating hits can take command dice off – even to the point of the crew bailing out. That is one of the reasons I like it so much, its abstract, but you get the feeling of being a tank crew in action!

Given this example: a tank is struck by anti-tank fire but the shot bounces without any damage. Does it make sense that the AFV might be supressed as a result. And if so, should the vehicle being supressed lose it's next action recovering from supression? Or alternatively maybe the tank takes it's next action with a penalty?

I'm assuming you are indicating no internal damage, including spalling?

There would be many factors. Do they know who or what is firing at them and the ability to penetrate/damage them? Are they being flanked? Do they have infantry support? Are they in communication? What are their current orders: advance, defend, fall back? What is the crew experience level.

I'd think that, ideally, you'd want to relocate or seek a turret/hull-down position. A non-penetrating hit can still damage your drive train, jam your turret, or knock out your gunsight. No tank is 100% safe on the battlefield.

My solution is that when hit, there is a 5% chance of a critical hit location, which is historically modeled on the target vehicle. This means the turret ring, BMG, CMG, can be hit (about 70% of hull or turret armor), shot trap, vision port, sprocket, etc.

Fear of the unknown is what drives morale to a great degree. That's missing in our god's eye view of the battle. If a tank is immobilized, the crew may feel the best chance for survival is to stay and fight.

When my son was in Yemen, he was overwatching a Saudi tank (Abrams or Challenger) with a drone that took RPK fire from the other side of a hill. The Saudi crew promptly bailed and ran off. Probably expecting a barrage of RPGs next.

Probably the best COA would be to relocate to a new firing position.

WAT is on the right track because you are performing real actions. However, our group found it slow to play and have a better and much quicker way of accomplishing the same thing.

Wolfhag