The Follies of Armored Warfare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

PimpYourAFV -> The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/25/2006 6:01:30 AM)

For anyone who thinks armor wins battles, look at this horrific picture to see how it 'wins'. The entire desert is a burning junkyard of gnarled up metal. This picture shows only a third or less of the carnage. The game is one I played during my infancy of using this game a year or so ago. At the time I had not yet learned the proper tactics of warfare that Haig taught us.

[image]http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads11/ARMORLOS.jpg[/image]

We can all learn a lot from World War One which was the proving grounds of solid infantry and cavalry attacks. In WW2 thousands tanks were boiled up for what good? Only to provide entertainment to PC gamers. Packs of infantry and cavalry attacking heavily fortified positions supported by artillery is the only intelligent way to win a battle.



FlashfyreSP -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/25/2006 6:30:15 AM)

I really think you should study your modern military history more thoroughly. Your enthusiasm for a discredited theory of military operations is difficult to understand.



azraelck -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/25/2006 7:18:42 AM)

I did the same thing several times.

Set up a strong defensive line; give good artillery support, and back up your line with a **** load of ATGs, and you'll leave a desert full of ruined hulks in seconds. I've had this happen multiple times; with the best one a DV in which I lost only 3 AFVs, 12 men, and a APC. How'd I do it? Strong defensive positions coupled with semi-liquid mixed-arms tactics. Closer to liquid than solid, but still they were there.


Try doing that in an assault; with a decided disadvantage in manpower (points) to go in with. I'm talking about having to barely manage to buy three comapnies of infantry for your core; without armored support; and using all your support points to pump up your arty to an effective level.



Afrika Korps -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/25/2006 5:54:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

I really think you should study your modern military history more thoroughly. Your enthusiasm for a discredited theory of military operations is difficult to understand.


[sm=00000289.gif]

TBT having you in a twist FlashfyreSP is a riot...everytime I read one of his posts about Haig, I wait for you to step into the thread and "slap your forehead". [:D]



IBTyrone -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/25/2006 6:50:52 PM)

Agreed. Flash said he hasn't actually played the game in awhile. I think a Flash vs. TBT PBEM would be a riot! [:D]



Wild Bill -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/25/2006 9:11:10 PM)

Tanks are not invulnerable. They are machines. They have limits. While the protect, they need protecting. If one practices the art of combined arms, infantry supporting tanks and vice versa, all should go relatively well. You'll see this shortly in an upcoming scenario where Japanese tanks in Malaya are hell bent for leather.

WB



Terminus -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/25/2006 9:27:34 PM)

Another thing that "tank fanboys" tend to forget is the meat inside the tank. Even on a modern MBT, if you're buttoned up, you can't see squat. Tanks aren't invulnerable monsters, and they're only as good as the people in them.



azraelck -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/25/2006 10:09:43 PM)

Neither are infantry; and they are a hell of a lot more vulnerable that a block of iron and steel. No Infantry AT weapon can be used at a range that a tank cannot fire back; and once you get latter in the war; that ATRs are worthless. The Panzerfausts and Panzershreks are relatively short range weapons.

Though, I don't think anyone here has advocated Mass Armoured charges (though they are enjoyable). My own post, as a 'tank fanboy'; pointed out not armor but ATG and artillery support; with MMG and LMG units to help cut down infantry. While that mission involved a liberal amount of tanks; they were not the focus of my core; nor did they win the battle. It was 2 lb ATGs that won that battle; not infantry and armor. While I do love my Panzers and Shermans; I'm not naieve enough to think that a dedicated armor force can win through without support. Even with support, I have seen heavy armored casualties to engineer units before; as well as to mines and even regular infantry.

The main goal of any battlefield commander should be to achieve the objectives with as few casualties as possible. Haig tactics make that an impossible goal. A number of tanks and MGs will inflict massive casualties on the Haig-commander's forces; and ultimately; while you may win one or two battles; in RL you will not have the manpower to continue that kind of war for long. In SPWaW; with infinite replacements; Haig tactics are only slightly more viable. Even then, try using Haig tactics in a long campaign; and you'll not make it very far before Your unable to even rebuild your core due to a lack of replacement points.
(edit)
I've decided to start a long campaign using Haig Tactics. I expect to be incredibly bored during the first battle, taking two hours a turn just to move my infantry. I give three battles before I am unable to rebuild about 25% of my force.



PimpYourAFV -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 2:25:23 AM)


Gentlemen, thank you all for your well seasoned input. It is nice to discuss the differences in doctrines with brothers who love military tactics. [8D]

I shall try to explain why infantry and cavalry are the core force of the army and tanks are but a pricy accessory which should only be purchased with expendable treasury funds.

Imagine if you will, one infantry squad and one tank each approaching a heavily fortified enemy position. Which will be destroyed without a shot fired and which has a chance of conducting a successful assault. I will tell you what will happen. First the tank will pop from the first well-aimed AP round that hits it with sufficient velocity which is usually immediately upon coming into view of the enemy, most often instantly ending the lives of the 4 crew members when the tank's own arsenal ignites.

While the tank is busy exploding, the infantry will safely keep its distance from the tank pyer and use the terrain, shell holes and possibly smoke to allow a safe approach. They can also provide leapfrog coverfire for each other while half of them are on the move. Once near the enemy, the satchel charges or flamethrower comes out and a bunker joins the tank in the bonfire.

Tanks are basically the 'popcorn' of the battlefield. They explode and provide bonfires to heat and illuminate the field for the infantry who are advancing. The popping tanks are most useful in winter when the infantry risk not being able to fire weapons jamming due to the cold and from hands freezing. Instant pyers is their most common role but much more expensive than oil and gloves.

Taking a tank onto a well contested battlefield is no different from showing up at a demolition derby in a shiny black Dodge Viper. Tanks are expensive toys that only the children of a wealthy state can afford to enjoy without endangering their own existence.

That said, I'm not against having up to one platoon of tanks in the core forces of a large battlegroup for variety and fun. Just make sure you have the funds to replace them after each battle and that their cost doesn't prevent you from taking care of your valuable infantry platoons. [:)]




KG Erwin -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 5:59:50 AM)

For a Japanese player to be so enamored of the infantry doesn't surprise me. After all, his WWII countrymen were some of the toughest foot soldiers that ever existed.

The fascination with the cavalry is a bit more difficult to understand.

He IS right about the overweening attention paid to the fleets of tanks that lumbered over the deserts of North Africa and the endless steppes of the Ukraine, BUT, everyone is now familiar with the methodology of my own tactics.

Therefore, I won't bore you guys with yet another description of my personal favorites. [;)]

However, I find TBT's mindset to be very interesting, as it could be the voice of one of our fearsome opponents from 65 years ago.

That being said, I'm very grateful that we are now allies. [:)]



azraelck -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 6:18:03 AM)

It's more his facination with the disproven tactics of a WWI general who's been villified due to the vast numbers of casualties his men suffered under his command. This is in disregard to every successful operation in WWII and beyond.



JediMessiah -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 7:07:21 AM)

ive been watching this dialogue and it is amusing.

i dont like to rattle on as i hate typing...but i will say this


armor is a tool, like an infantrymans rifle or flamethrower. its a force multiplier and when used intelligently in conjunction with proper combined arms doctrines it its very effective. and it has one supreme advantage over the tactics employed by haig...


it takes, for arguments sake, 16 years to build an infantryman, while a tank can be built in hours. and as a military commander or politician or soldiers family, i would much rather see my money wasted than my soldiers lives squandered. destroying a tank isnt necesarly the death of the crew either, especially here in the modern era as tanks are designed specifically for crew survivabilty (in most nations at least)

in the end, a tank is only a tool, like a rifle or a horse.

in your example tbt, the infantry squad would be pinned down our killed outright by whatever cannon hit that tank (or more likely by mg fire) and eventually finished off by artillery (or an opposing tank driveing over them). personally id take my chances in the tank, with several inches of steel between me and bullets or fragments, and the wheels to get out of dodge if things go poorly

all of these tools are needed, as i wouldnt deprive my army of any of them, just as i wouldmt deprive my soldiers training in hand to hand combat or a knife, even in the modern battlefield.

im not saying that these suicidal massed infantry and cavalry attacks cannot work, just that they wouild be more cost effective in lives (and probably even in dollars) if equipped with the proper tools, from the bayonet up to the mbt

-jedi



FlashfyreSP -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 7:12:57 AM)

A word of caution to all: Do not confuse what you see (and do) in wargames with what happens in real life.



JEB Davis -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 8:21:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JediMessiah

snip

it takes, for arguments sake, 16 years to build an infantryman, while a tank can be built in hours. and as a military commander or politician or soldiers family, i would much rather see my money wasted than my soldiers lives squandered.



I agree.

What I see going on here is a basic difference in how cultures view the value of human life. Don't eastern culture and western culture (over the course of history) sit on opposite sides of this issue? I think so.

I personally think human life is much too precious to throw it away in cavalry/infantry charges into the teeth of machineguns, etc. Much better to maneuver, flank, encircle, etc. to end a battle with less loss of life (on both sides) than to increase the carnage which TBT revels in.

HOWEVER, it's just a game after all. Even though while I play it I sometimes CRINGE when "my" men are killed, and take it seriously.

Go for it TBT, charge !!!!!! Have fun like YOU want to !!!!

Let's all enjoy playing it the way we like to, variety is the spice of life.



Alby -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 8:27:48 AM)

Cavalry???
[&:]



PimpYourAFV -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 9:02:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JEB Davis

What I see going on here is a basic difference in how cultures view the value of human life. Don't eastern culture and western culture (over the course of history) sit on opposite sides of this issue? I think so.

I personally think human life is much too precious to throw it away in cavalry/infantry charges into the teeth of machineguns, etc. Much better to maneuver, flank, encircle, etc. to end a battle with less loss of life (on both sides) than to increase the carnage which TBT revels in.

HOWEVER, it's just a game after all. Even though while I play it I sometimes CRINGE when "my" men are killed, and take it seriously.

Go for it TBT, charge !!!!!! Have fun like YOU want to !!!!

Let's all enjoy playing it the way we like to, variety is the spice of life.


Your ideas about minimizing casualties are based on common sense as well as human nation JEB Davis. In the short term it makes sense. However, studying historical battles reveals a trend only the best military tacticians can recognize without being told. This is the strategy behind warfare. Almost all the major wars of the 20th century were won using massed infantry attacks, sometimes employing cavalry as well for optimal effectiveness.

For example, General Giap defeated both the French and the USA in Vietnam using human wave attacks supported by intense mortar fire. China prevented North Korea from being saved by the Americans and only a U.N. peace treaty stopped the rampaging hordes of Chinese, who had neither tanks nor air support, from taking all of Korea into the communist camp.

The point of this is, the high casualties enjoyed during those wars not only made for a more interesting war, it also ended the war earlier and with less casualties than a beat around the bush, 'casualty minimizing' strategy would have achieved. The USA and Russia both now cannot handle casualties and their wars have suffered accordingly as we saw in both Vietnam for America and in Afganistan the Soviets were crushed by cavalry and infantry only. Modern tactics and weapons were defeated by simple, WW1 weapons and tactics.

As for needing a huge population base to provide for large infantry attacks, that is a major misunderstanding. The Soviet Union outnumbered the Afgans by many times and still lost to their simplicity. America also outnumbered Vietnam by many times in population, yet lost due to lack of grit and commitment, as well as they relied on modern weapons and tactics to their detriment.

Haig was before his time in foreseeing the effectiveness of a massed infantry charge along with arty and cavalry. Had Haig not been a commander, Germany would likely have taken over France in WW1.



Warrior -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 12:24:47 PM)

TBT, please remove your tongue from your cheeck and quit teasing the animals.



forgorin -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 1:29:34 PM)


[/quote]

I personally think human life is much too precious to throw it away in cavalry/infantry charges into the teeth of machineguns, etc. Much better to maneuver, flank, encircle, etc. to end a battle with less loss of life (on both sides) than to increase the carnage which TBT revels in.

[/quote]

Human life is NOT precious. Those who think otherwise need to spend some time soul searching. We NEED to get rid of some people. Not necessarily you, but lots of us. Our present population is a serious problem. It is causing the slow but ever quickening destruction of our world. We are using nonrenewable resources at a phi nominal increasing rate. Polluting out soil, water and air. The 3 most precious things to us “people”. With out those we will all shrivel up and die. That said...

We need a new war where Haig like tactics are used. Scrap the tanks. All that they do is WASTE out precious resources. Use people we have more than enough.



Korpraali V -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 2:42:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: forgorin

Human life is NOT precious. Those who think otherwise need to spend some time soul searching. We NEED to get rid of some people. Not necessarily you, but lots of us. Our present population is a serious problem. It is causing the slow but ever quickening destruction of our world. We are using nonrenewable resources at a phi nominal increasing rate. Polluting out soil, water and air. The 3 most precious things to us “people”. With out those we will all shrivel up and die. That said...

We need a new war where Haig like tactics are used. Scrap the tanks. All that they do is WASTE out precious resources. Use people we have more than enough.


And you would be happy to die among the first ones?



Warrior -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 3:04:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: forgorin

Human life is NOT precious. Those who think otherwise need to spend some time soul searching. We NEED to get rid of some people. Not necessarily you, but lots of us. Our present population is a serious problem. It is causing the slow but ever quickening destruction of our world. We are using nonrenewable resources at a phi nominal increasing rate. Polluting out soil, water and air. The 3 most precious things to us “people”. With out those we will all shrivel up and die. That said...



You might consider doing more studying rather than just parroting the eco-fanatic party line. While it's a good idea to control population, we are not in danger of running out of any resources. History shows that when things get scarce, new sources or alternatives will be found. The sky is not falling.



FlashfyreSP -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 3:52:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai
Your ideas about minimizing casualties are based on common sense as well as human nation JEB Davis. In the short term it makes sense. However, studying historical battles reveals a trend only the best military tacticians can recognize without being told. This is the strategy behind warfare. Almost all the major wars of the 20th century were won using massed infantry attacks, sometimes employing cavalry as well for optimal effectiveness.

For example, General Giap defeated both the French and the USA in Vietnam using human wave attacks supported by intense mortar fire. China prevented North Korea from being saved by the Americans and only a U.N. peace treaty stopped the rampaging hordes of Chinese, who had neither tanks nor air support, from taking all of Korea into the communist camp. As I have suggested before, please study your military history from reputable sources before making statements like this; not only did the Chinese have tanks, but so did the North Koreans, as anyone from Task Force Smith can attest to. And both had air support; why do you think the US called the northwest section of Korea "MiG Alley?

The point of this is, the high casualties enjoyed during those wars not only made for a more interesting war, it also ended the war earlier and with less casualties than a beat around the bush, 'casualty minimizing' strategy would have achieved. The USA and Russia both now cannot handle casualties and their wars have suffered accordingly as we saw in both Vietnam for America and in Afganistan the Soviets were crushed by cavalry and infantry only. Modern tactics and weapons were defeated by simple, WW1 weapons and tactics. This is not only a simplistic statement, ignoring the greater political and social aspects that contributed to these defeats, but is also a grossly incorrect one. What WWI weapons were the VC and North Vietnamese using? Oh, right...the AK47 assault rifle. What WWI tactics were used by them? Yeah...fire and manuever.

As for needing a huge population base to provide for large infantry attacks, that is a major misunderstanding. The Soviet Union outnumbered the Afgans by many times and still lost to their simplicity. America also outnumbered Vietnam by many times in population, yet lost due to lack of grit and commitment, as well as they relied on modern weapons and tactics to their detriment.

Haig was before his time in foreseeing the effectiveness of a massed infantry charge along with arty and cavalry. Had Haig not been a commander, Germany would likely have taken over France in WW1.






JVega -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 4:40:49 PM)

I for one would like to say that the days of the tank are coming to an end. Infantry has always been the most powerful tool of warfare, and remains the most important part of the army today; just like it has been for thousands of years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there anti-tank guns for infantry out today that have a longer range than most tanks? Missile stuff.

The way I see it now, is that the two most powerful parts of any army today is the airforce and the infantry. The airforce obilerates and the infantry mops up. :) Don't get me wrong though. Tanks are without a doubt powerful machines of war, but I do believe they're overrated. They're too easy to destroy by the infantry, and the best I can tell, tanks are best at fighting other tanks, rather than infantry and whatever.

This is just my point of view though. Nothing near a professional opinion. :)



JediMessiah -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 5:12:24 PM)

the meeasure taken to develop anti-tank weaponry only speaks to their validity.


and to tbt...

the tanks of haigs time crawled at 2-5 mph. i think he would gladly of traded in his horse for a metal version that went faster, longer, didnt get ornery, could take a bullet or 2, and be repaired if it broke a leg.

modern mechanized forces have this, plus the abilty to project their firepower further and more effectively

-jedi



Korpraali V -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 6:17:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warrior
You might consider doing more studying rather than just parroting the eco-fanatic party line. While it's a good idea to control population, we are not in danger of running out of any resources. History shows that when things get scarce, new sources or alternatives will be found. The sky is not falling.


Agreed. And the real question is how to share the resources we have. Currently food could be shared to everyone and it would be enough. It's a question of will, not a question of resources. And as long as we are that 10% that own and use 90% of everything on this earth, we have nothing to complain about resource limits. We and our sefisness are the real problems here, not the amount of resources.

It is not a question of human population but a question of human (our) selfisness.



Warrior -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 7:17:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warrior
You might consider doing more studying rather than just parroting the eco-fanatic party line. While it's a good idea to control population, we are not in danger of running out of any resources. History shows that when things get scarce, new sources or alternatives will be found. The sky is not falling.


Agreed. And the real question is how to share the resources we have. Currently food could be shared to everyone and it would be enough. It's a question of will, not a question of resources. And as long as we are that 10% that own and use 90% of everything on this earth, we have nothing to complain about resource limits. We and our sefisness are the real problems here, not the amount of resources.

It is not a question of human population but a question of human (our) selfisness.


We, the 10% that consumes 90% of the resources, are also the ones who crank out 90% of what the worlds needs and uses. To call that selfish is another politically-correct but erroneous world-view. Before we start beating our breasts and feeling guilty about the resources we use, let's look at how much of EVERYTHING we produce... and where the world would have been without that production. As far as enough food for everyone, let's point the finger at the governments who, for political reasons and to retain their power, keep the supplies from getting to their people, or haven't built the infrastructure necessary to get the supplies distributed because their corrupt rulers are too busy stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.

In case you were referring specifically to the United States: Americans are not selfish, and never have been. I challenge you to show me any other country that gives as much, officially from our government and unoffically by private citizens, as America.

And here's a final question for you: I own a nice house, drive a decent car, have plenty of food and conveniences, I give to my favorite charities, and pay my taxes. I have worked very hard for all I have and spend my hard-earned dollars on what I feel is important. My neighbor is a lazy bum who won't work, has no legitimate reason to qualify for welfare from the government, and always whines about not having anything. Should I consider myself selfish because I don't buy him a house, car, and groceries?



Korpraali V -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 7:52:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warrior

We, the 10% that consumes 90% of the resources, are also the ones who crank out 90% of what the worlds needs and uses. To call that selfish is another politically-correct but erroneous world-view. Before we start beating our breasts and feeling guilty about the resources we use, let's look at how much of EVERYTHING we produce... and where the world would have been without that production. As far as enough food for everyone, let's point the finger at the governments who, for political reasons and to retain their power, keep the supplies from getting to their people, or haven't built the infrastructure necessary to get the supplies distributed because their corrupt rulers are too busy stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.


I partly agree that. But when talking about world's resources as a whole, the western civilizations have always been very eager to use not only their own but also all the others' resources as well. Africa is one quite large example. I'm talking about something called 'collective responsibility'. And that is not ment to take away personal responsibility but to largen the view.

quote:


In case you were referring specifically to the United States: Americans are not selfish, and never have been. I challenge you to show me any other country that gives as much, officially from our government and unoffically by private citizens, as America.

I was referring to western civilization as a whole, including US, but not specifically US.

quote:


And here's a final question for you: I own a nice house, drive a decent car, have plenty of food and conveniences, I give to my favorite charities, and pay my taxes. I have worked very hard for all I have and spend my hard-earned dollars on what I feel is important. My neighbor is a lazy bum who won't work, has no legitimate reason to qualify for welfare from the government, and always whines about not having anything. Should I consider myself selfish because I don't buy him a house, car, and groceries?


Comparing to most of people, your neighbour is still quite rich. What I meaned were the people who really don't have anything no matter how hard they'd work etc. and they still die for hunger or diseases that could have been vaccinated away for 1€ or 1$ per person.



azraelck -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 7:57:12 PM)

The US contributes some 80% of the world's aid. Further more, Both Korea and Vietnam; considered US wars were actually UN operations. It's just that when push comes to shove; only the US and a few allies have the testicals to actually put out forces to support those resoultions. Look how Saddam played with the UN. Resolution after resoultion passed; and still the inspectors were held back, thrown out, harassed, and everything else. It took a more conservative government on the US' part; but finally we dealt with it. Whats worse, the UN refused to take part in it, even though it was backing their ineffective resolutions. That was going on all through the 90's, throughout Clinton's two terms. And even he initiated a bombing campaign; though everything went back to status quo afterwards. He didn't want to fullscale war then. So take you America-sucks attitude and bury it. You have what you have because Americans are too generous, and they've stepped up and given their lives and industry for others.



KG Erwin -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 7:59:06 PM)

Careful, guys. Once you stray into political discussions, that usually means the thread will be locked down. [:-]



Korpraali V -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 8:17:21 PM)

Gunny: True. Have to try to keep that out. But this one is too delicious not to be commented:
quote:

ORIGINAL: azraelck
but finally we dealt with it.

And now there's no problem in Iraq?



azraelck -> RE: The Follies of Armored Warfare (2/26/2006 9:01:29 PM)

Far less than there was; and far less than what's being reported. No more rape houses, no more being killed because you looked at Saddam the wrong way, no more being forced to wear a mustache... Currently, the majority of the US actions involve moving out of the cities and into military bases, and turning over things to the Iraqi army and security forces. At least, so says the US soldiers I've spoken to on the matter. But hey, they don't know as much reporters who's entire careers center around an abject hatred of republicans; to the point that they fabricate documents and completely reword statements in order to discredit them After all, they're just soldiers who are or were in Iraq. Surely the allmighty MEDIA would know more about whats actually happening on the ground.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.859375