StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What do you think of this? I read a PC gamer review where they thought this was highly unrealistic that Chinese Horseman could destroy (I guess in this case kill the tank crew with knives)

I told someone about this and he remarked that tanks have been stopped with knives before in real life, the situation was they got on the tank (not sure if it was moving on not) broke open the hatches, and threatened to to kill anyone who didn't surrender.

When I asked him "Doesn't the tank crew have machines guns on the tank and handguns on their person inside the tank?" He said that it's hard to shoot someone on the tank with a machine gun, fair enough, but wouldn't they hear you breaking open the hatch and grab their guns? To this he said "It doesn't matter if they have the drop on you" Anyway, I think this was an isolated incident where they didn't see the tank coming, if the infantry is right in front of you, they'll certainly see them.

If this works so well, why do we have anti-tank guns, other tanks, rocket launchers, and A-10 tank killer planes, why not just have a bunch of guys on motorcycles sneak up the tanks, break open the hatches and try to kill them with knives? Maybe perhaps because they have infantry with them, but anyway, how would this work against just tanks?

Most tanks also have very secure hatches that once internally secured you'll need time, an acetylene torch, and a nice long pry bar to get open.

One slight flaw with their idea.
1. Tank's hatchs are locked to the inside.

2. Tank hatchs are not made out of tinfoil! They are made of armor grade steel and composites.


You can't pry open a T-34 hatch with a frigging crowbar, no more than you can pry open any other tank hatch with just hand tools. You might be able to CUT your way through given twenty minutes and a tank that does not simply drive back towards some other tank who would clean off the would be tank hunters with a burst of MG fire.

*Edit the only possible thing they could be referring to is the Japanese in WWII, who did lose tanks to a knife, or rather, the Japanese Ha-go's turret device could be jammed by sticking a knife or any other slim metal object into the turret ring.

Can't modern tanks just fire their main guns and the pressure force would blow off the intruders anyway?

1. Tank's hatchs are locked to the inside.

Has it always been this way though? I really didn't know what to say to his claim, I take he just read it somewhere, I really can't validate it or not, from what you're telling me it seems impossible. Assuming it could be done, do they have guns inside the tanks (small arms fire guns, handguns, etc)

2. Tank hatchs are not made out of tinfoil! They are made of armor grade steel and composites.


[You can't pry open a T-34 hatch with a frigging crowbar, no more than you can pry open any other tank hatch with just hand tools. You might be able to CUT your way through given twenty minutes and a tank that does not simply drive back towards some other tank who would clean off the would be tank hunters with a burst of MG fire.

What about with a plasma cutter? I'm assuming this incident he talked about was a long time ago, and how big is one you could use to cut through it?

It's because Civilisation combat is unsophisticated bullshit. They're not really 'tanks' or 'swords', they're 'attack 2' and 'defence 6'. It's been stupid for nearly 20 years.

People wonder why I hate Civilisation so much. Biggest cash cow ever, and it's even full of bugs.

Shinova wrote:Can't modern tanks just fire their main guns and the pressure force would blow off the intruders anyway?

Yes, I've seen tanks fire and when they do the recoil throws them back a few feet.

Does anyone remember that incident about, I'd say 10-12 years ago, in LA, I think where a man with a military history, and a history of mental illness, got control of a tank, and took it down the highway. The tank didn't have any shells, or ammunition of any kind, but I think the hatch was open already, a cop got on top of it, told him to stop, and when he refused shot him.

I like to think that they give the horsemen and such primitive charges to blow the treads then the turret and hatch.

But when gotta start using your imagination like that in a game it is a bad sign.

Shrykull wrote:

1. Tank's hatchs are locked to the inside.

Has it always been this way though? I really didn't know what to say to his claim, I take he just read it somewhere, I really can't validate it or not, from what you're telling me it seems impossible. Assuming it could be done, do they have guns inside the tanks (small arms fire guns, handguns, etc)

Since the very first British tanks, the hatchs locked. The first locks were simple bars, like your traditional deadbolt, just a big metal rod that prevented the door from opening out unless throw back. Fun fact, the had a nasty habit of jamming the door shut since the bolt went directly into the hull of the tank, any hits on that side could deform the steel and lock the bolt in place.

]

What about with a plasma cutter? I'm assuming this incident he talked about was a long time ago, and how big is one you could use to cut through it?

That's what I meant by "cut" your way through, except modern tanks used composite armor because of HEAT rounds, so Cutter's take a long time to cut through tank armor.

He may be referring to an incident in WWII where Polish cavalry charged and defeated a tank regiment via surprise, by massacreing the dismounted crew with lance and gun alike.

Tanks advancing in a mutually supporting formation could just hose each other down with machine gun fire. You might take some minor damage but it'll get rid of the infantry. Though if you know you're fighting horse cavalry, you'd take flame tanks, and in that case I 100% guarentee the enemy will not get a chance to even think about prying open a hatch.

Well, if the driver has the hatch open, you can just sneak around to the front and jam a sword or spear into his face. Of course, then you have the fact that the radios still work, so assistance can be called in and simply blow away all the attackers.

chitoryu12 wrote:Well, if the driver has the hatch open, you can just sneak around to the front and jam a sword or spear into his face. Of course, then you have the fact that the radios still work, so assistance can be called in and simply blow away all the attackers.

All modern tanks have optics, there is no slit you can jam the knife through to hit the driver, and in combat they are buttoned down. Good luck getting the hatch open.

I recall that most WWII tanks had machine gun mounts, and that there was once an entire Cossack cavalry charge in WWII got gunned down....

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I recall that most WWII tanks had machine gun mounts, and that there was once an entire Cossack cavalry charge in WWII got gunned down....

I seem to recall something about the early days of WW2, when polish cavalry were doing quite well against german tanks until infantry on bicycles turned up...

Does anyone remember that incident about, I'd say 10-12 years ago, in LA, I think where a man with a military history, and a history of mental illness, got control of a tank, and took it down the highway. The tank didn't have any shells, or ammunition of any kind, but I think the hatch was open already, a cop got on top of it, told him to stop, and when he refused shot him.

Said tank was unstoppable until the driver ran it up on a jersey wall and he couldn't get it unstuck.


WW2 tanks had openings which could have grenades thrown into, but no modern tank is going to be stopped by guys with knives, unless a sword manages make a one in a million shot and break a track. If guys with knives are so effective, why do terrorists use IEDs? BEcause if 20 guys tried to swarm a tank with swords they'd be cut to ribbons by the tanks wingman. Terrorists are dumb, not stupid.

Keevan_Colton wrote: I seem to recall something about the early days of WW2, when polish cavalry were doing quite well against german tanks until infantry on bicycles turned up...

Sure, because Polish cavalry were in fact highly-trained mounted infantry formations who fought on foot and were equipped with modern (for the time) anti-tank weapons and their own armored vehicle support. The Polish Hussars vs. German Panzers is a myth perpetrated by the Nazis for propaganda purposes, based on an incident in which a Polish cavalry squadron stumbled across a German infantry group camping at rest, which they charged and slaughtered, until running into an adjacent German tank group by accident- which they wisely fled promptly.

I cant recall ever losing an actual Modern Tank in Civ 4 to any non-gunpowder unit. There are a few cases when I've lost Modern Tank units to Industrial Era Riflemen, Musketmen, Industrial Era Cavalry or early-gunpowder Artillery units and those cases are very few and far between.

I find it much more ludicrous though that a bi-plane can somehow intercept a Jet Fighter, or that Industrial Era infantry, cavalry and artillery can successfully engage modern Attack Helicopters and even take them down

Stark wrote:It's because Civilisation combat is unsophisticated bullshit. They're not really 'tanks' or 'swords', they're 'attack 2' and 'defence 6'. It's been stupid for nearly 20 years.

At least with the Civ2 system things like "tanks vs. swordsmen" almost always went the way of the tank due to the Firepower system. They should've just kept that and started improvements on it rather than make new combat systems for Civ3/Civ4.

People wonder why I hate Civilisation so much. Biggest cash cow ever, and it's even full of bugs.

Yes, but the gameplay ... so addictive

MRDOD wrote:He may be referring to an incident in WWII where Polish cavalry charged and defeated a tank regiment via surprise, by massacreing the dismounted crew with lance and gun alike.

Can you please provide a link to the article?

And what did the Poles do to the unmanned tanks afterwards? Set them on fire? Blow up their onboard ammo to destroy them? Drive them back to headquarters?

Sidewinder wrote:

MRDOD wrote:He may be referring to an incident in WWII where Polish cavalry charged and defeated a tank regiment via surprise, by massacreing the dismounted crew with lance and gun alike.

Can you please provide a link to the article?

And what did the Poles do to the unmanned tanks afterwards? Set them on fire? Blow up their onboard ammo to destroy them? Drive them back to headquarters?

Apparantly I bought in to the myth too, albeit less "silly untermensch" and more "holy shit". Look at Thirdfain's post above.

MRDOD wrote:

Sidewinder wrote:

MRDOD wrote:He may be referring to an incident in WWII where Polish cavalry charged and defeated a tank regiment via surprise, by massacreing the dismounted crew with lance and gun alike.

Can you please provide a link to the article?

And what did the Poles do to the unmanned tanks afterwards? Set them on fire? Blow up their onboard ammo to destroy them? Drive them back to headquarters?

Apparantly I bought in to the myth too, albeit less "silly untermensch" and more "holy shit". Look at Thirdfain's post above.

To expand on Thirdfain's post above, the incident was the Battle of Krojanty. The 18th Pomeranian Uhlans came upon an infantry battalion by surprise and charged rather than dismount and fight, to keep the infantry from deploying into combat formation. The charge of the 18th Uhlans demoralized and delayed the 20th Motorized Division, and allowed two Polish infantry battalions to withdraw. The Wehrmacht's infantry transports came up to cover their withdrawal, and killed 19 cavalry with their machineguns. Journalists were brought up later after armored units had arrived on the scene, and reported it as cavalry having charged tanks with sabres. According to Guderian's memoirs, he personally had to intervene to keep the 20th Motorized from routing.

I recall when Civ III came out there was a review in Computer Gaming Monthly that mentioned th combat was changed for relativeness- that is, when you have a bunch of spearmen against tanks it's supposed to mean numbers that would lead spearment to beat tanks- like 10,000 of the guys against 20 tanks. The assumption is that when you have that many men, you could actually beat mechanized machines of death.

Stark wrote:People wonder why I hate Civilisation so much. Biggest cash cow ever, and it's even full of bugs.

What do you feel about Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri?

phongn wrote:At least with the Civ2 system things like "tanks vs. swordsmen" almost always went the way of the tank due to the Firepower system. They should've just kept that and started improvements on it rather than make new combat systems for Civ3/Civ4.

I never played Civ 2, but I've often heard the combat system was less broken. It just boggles my mind that someone can actually design a game in the 21st century with these kinds of problems literally built in. You, me, anyone here could design a combat system eight million times more flexible and sensible, because it's not 1989.

Yes, but the gameplay ... so addictive

I got sick of Civilisation *in highschool*. These days it crashes way more.

Battlehymn Republic wrote:What do you feel about Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri?

AC was good. It had some new ideas (for the time) and it's scenario limited tech silliness (no spearmen). Back then the stacked map improvements and ecology stuff was new and interesting, but if they made it now it'd be painfully retro like Civ.

Stark wrote:AC was good. It had some new ideas (for the time) and it's scenario limited tech silliness (no spearmen). Back then the stacked map improvements and ecology stuff was new and interesting, but if they made it now it'd be painfully retro like Civ.

Actually, the combat system didn't allow tech silliness. You really couldn't make a low tech unit that could take on high tech ones. Even the techs that allowed you to reduce stat disparity were themselves high tech anyway. Civ 3 was an enormous backstep for the series, not quite to the point that a battleship could lose to a settler (1/19 chance in Civ 1, but I've known it happen), but you could certainly lose tanks to stuff that shouldn't faze them in the slightest.