Armor as infantry transport?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Armor as infantry transport?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center >> Armor as infantry transport?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Armor as infantry transport? - 5/8/2002 11:19:15 PM

Seagull

Posts: 80
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Halifax, NS, Canada
Status: offline

I read with interest ZoomBoy27's thread on trucks. It lead me to wonder what the pros and cons are of using your armor to provide a ride for leg infantry.

This may be a bit naive, but the situation I've imagined runs something like this:

Tank encounters an infantry/engineer/AT/whatever unit at close quarters.

Infantry leap valiantly from the flanks of the tank to deal with the problem.

Infantry jumps back on the tank, which goes on its merry way (not on the same turn, though).

Is this completely off-base?

Post #: 1

No not completly - 5/8/2002 11:38:06 PM

Gary Tatro

Posts: 1213
Joined: 2/1/2002
From: MA, US
Status: offline

What ussually happens is that the infantry get wacked instead of you loosing your tank. A lot of what happens depends upon your infantry experience level. Ussually the infantry end up taking the damage and you get a chance to save your tank. Now if your infantry can rally and fight back good for them. This still does not make up for good recon units. This is more of a stop gap approach if you do not have any recon or need to move your infantry forward fast without scouting.

Let me back up. This only happens when your tank drives up to one of your before mentioned units and gets attacked at a one hex range. If the tank is attacked by another tank or ATG at longer ranges and is hit what happens is either your tank is destoryed or your armor holds and weather or not your tank is destoryed, your infantry get nocked off the tank and take tremendous suppretion (around 30-99). Now if your tank is missed your infantry do not take any suppression.

_____________________________

"Are you going to do something or just stand there and bleed"

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 2

- 5/9/2002 4:25:42 AM

WhiteRook

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline

Gary is correct in stating that good recon is the best answer. But there are times when you have to move armor in constricted localities and having men aboard your armor is a must! This statement comes from many-many games in the pacific jungles! :D

_____________________________

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 3

Another problem with armor transport - 5/9/2002 5:32:13 AM

ivantheterrible

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Most tanks have carry capacity of 8 or less, which means you usually can't load an entire 10 or 12 men squad on a tank.

Arggg, the "good old days" of SP I... when you can load anything on any vehicle, even an entire engineer squad on an armored car :rolleyes:

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 4

- 5/9/2002 5:35:03 AM

WhiteRook

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline

Well you have to admit life was much easier in SP1 because of it!;) ;)

_____________________________

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 5

Tank Riders - 5/9/2002 5:44:38 AM

Stahlhelm

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/22/2002
From: Australia
Status: offline

This discussion brings up an interesting question regarding Tank riders being used as ablative armour.
Are we playing Spwaw as a simulation or as a game.
In a simulation, you wouldn't use this tactic because no real world soldier would want to be sitting on a tank in close terrain.
He'll be behind it where it's safer.
In a game we are taking advantage of the way the game is programmed.
It was only the russians who made great use of tank riders but I suspect that had more to do with lack of armored transport than anything else.

_____________________________

"Don't make me come down there!"

-God

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 6

- 5/9/2002 8:44:55 AM

WhiteRook

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline

Well yes in some ways I suspect we all take advantage of how a game is programed at some point. Its just that in many scenarios I have played the 1 or 2 peices of armor I have are extreemly valuable componets that I can ill afford to loose before the battle really gets brewing! :D
It is a common occurance with gamers to gripe about a feature one moment and then take advantage of another one! ;)
I think it is up to the individual to call his own shots, even if it is against real world protocall. Thats the beautiful thing about games - you can fight Patton's battles with out ever having attended West Point! ;) ;) :D

_____________________________

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 7

- 5/15/2002 3:26:50 AM

kevsharr

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/5/2002
From: Conyers, Georgia
Status: offline

In the account's by german soldier's I've red infantry men did'nt like to be on or around tank's on an active battlefield because they generally drew to much fire......To you a hero is somekind of weird sandwich...Oddball

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 8

- 5/15/2002 3:54:33 AM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

Obvious statement: At least the Red Army field Tankeditshneckis :rolleyes: 8-man squads riding a tank. You can easily find photos depicting T-34's with lots of men on them, but I don't know if they bugged out before arriving in a 'hot' situation.

Also, Soviet mechanized divisions field VERY few trucks/HT's for troop transport, compared to a German/US mech div. - the troops are supposed to piggy-back on the tanks.

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 9

- 5/15/2002 7:00:03 PM

AbsntMndedProf

Posts: 1780
Joined: 7/6/2001
From: Boston, Massachusetts
Status: offline

Judging by the movies I've seen of AFVs on the move, unless the tank was going at moderate to slow speed, I imagine any infantry riding on it would be spending most of their time and attention hanging on for dear life. JMHO.

Eric Maietta

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 10

- 5/15/2002 8:13:40 PM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

I suppose this depends somewhat upon the nation and its tactics. The Soviets did not care too much about casualitites so tank riders got shot up a lot. Even current Soviet/Russian doctrine is to not dismont from BMPs until they are taking effective fire (read: several have been shot up). The US would carry infantry (there are lots of photos of this) but as rear area battle taxis not into small arms range of known enemy units. Once near the enemy, the infantry would dismount and closely accompany the tank. The US had exterior phones for close tank/inf coordination. I know there are accounts of inf that did not want to be around tanks because they are bullet magnets, but lots of infantry did like to be around tanks because they can provide great covering fire.

The problem in the game is that units move sequentially and not together. So in the game, you move your inf one hex forward and it gets shot up but your tank is not there to fire back so you move your tank up one hex but the infantry cannot now spot for it. Alternately, you move your tank up one hex first and it takes a ATG round but the inf is still one hex back and cannot spot the gun.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Seagull)

Post #: 11

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center >> Armor as infantry transport?

Page: [1]