Infantry on tanks....... (Full Version)

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



Message

TheOriginalOverlord -> Infantry on tanks....... (11/2/2000 6:57:00 AM)

Do you think we could look at the values again? I mean only "8" on a Wolverine according to the OOB. Look at this pic..... [img]http://www.enteract.com/~rheller/ww2/1bh09x.jpg[/img]



rexmonday -> (11/2/2000 7:03:00 AM)

Notice the corpse in front that resulted from this foolhardy tinkering with the rules. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]



thor -> (11/2/2000 7:09:00 AM)

Most armies in WWII only used tanks to get infantry to the battle site! They were not used as APCs. Exposed on the side of a tank under fire is suicide. The amount of gamers who abused this tactic is the reason for the lower capacities.



Pack Rat -> (11/2/2000 7:11:00 AM)

If I recall when the VW Beetle first came out you could see pictures like this too. Good photo I laughed my ass off. Do you have any info on this pic? Off the subject but my wife's Dad served the length of the war with "Bradley's Bloody Buckets". So named because they saw the thick of it and had the Pennsylvania keystone patch in red on their uniforms. Some where we have a picture of him fishing in Germany while the war raged on. I never had the honor of meeting the man In reading what this group went through I would have given him all the respect in the world. ------------------ Good hunting, Pack Rat



Toey -> (11/2/2000 7:13:00 AM)

16 GIs and Dead Kraut. I'd like to see the icon for that!



Desert Fox -> (11/2/2000 8:35:00 AM)

Personally, I am all for upping the carrying capacity of tanks to carry large amounts of infantry. There are quite a few situations where it would be incredibly useful to carry troops on tanks, bringing reinforcement units to the front being the most obvious. There is already a large kill penalty for troops that are on a tank when it is hit, so if it could be coded that the troops disembark the moment the tank is shot at, then that would solve everything. Basically, whenever a tank would get the # symbol next to it, infantry would dismount, and would not be allowed onto it as long as the symbol was there. Sounds fair, doesn't it? Coding it would be another problem, but I think it should be included in SPMW.



thor -> (11/2/2000 8:57:00 AM)

Having the ability to select the riders as targets and firing at them seperately from the tank would be a better solution. Well we're at it maybe we could get mounted fire from riders too!!



JNL -> (11/2/2000 12:30:00 PM)

I tend to agree with Thor - I myself would abuse that rule as much as possible. Still do to a certain extent. I find that I trade up (or down) my squads to a 9 man squad - play with reduced squad rule. Then eat the loss when I load up my troopies. Makes buying the StugIIIs a little more diffcult - they only have a carry capacity of 6 now. On the flip side the Russians still can carry 12 men per AFV (medium and up). While both Axis and Allies used AFVs as stop gap APC/Truck - the Russians used them through out the war as a primary method of moving troops. The US Marines really suffer (13 man squads)from this rule - but - I think it does force you to do things in the game as they would have happened on the field.



Randy -> (11/2/2000 1:07:00 PM)

As you can see in the picture it looks more like an administrative move instead of a tactical move! Semper Fi Randy



Kluckenbill -> (11/2/2000 9:09:00 PM)

I think the current rules for infantry on tanks are a lot better than in previous versions of SP. I still ride on tanks, but I find that the infantry takes casualties pretty badly if the tank is hit. I think this is reasonable and that it should make sense to move them up close to the action and then dismount, which I believe to be historically accurate. We also have to remember that relative to modern tanks, most WW2 tanks were quite small, some were positively miniscule. Go to any good tank museum (I love the one at Aberdeen PG in Maryland) and look at the size of Stg 3's, T26's, Stuarts etc. Even Panthers, T34's and Shermans are a lot smaller than an M60 or an M1. Bye the way, I love the picture too, I sure wouldn't want to go cross country riding like that. ------------------ Target, Cease Fire !



Warhorse -> (11/2/2000 10:19:00 PM)

Yah, fire team, (4 men) rode on an M-60 when I was in the Marines, man what a wild ride, not something I would want to do routinely, I assure you!! Bad enough in the Amtracs, which pitched side to side violently under speed, but the tank, you had to hold the grips very tightly, and plant both feet wide, damn was I glad when they slammed the breaks, our signal to get off...then the 105mm went off, no sooner had the tank stopped, deafening!! ------------------ Mike Amos Meine Ehre Heisst Treue



The MSG -> (11/3/2000 1:04:00 AM)

Heres an idea, drive that baby over 15 kmh and see how many ppl still hold on... ------------------ The MSG



Warhorse -> (11/3/2000 2:02:00 AM)

ROTFLMAO!!!! That's a fact, my friend, watch the bouncing Jar-heads!!! ------------------ Mike Amos Meine Ehre Heisst Treue



Nikademus -> (11/3/2000 2:28:00 AM)

the reduced ability to load infantry should stay (IMHO) because it is a rule that can too easily be abused and create unrealistic (if more convienient) situations. I myself had done it alot, even to the point of doing it **even when the infantry had APC's of their own** on the logic that the tanks would be better protected against ambush and in some versions of SP, the infantry themselves were less vulnerable as opposed to being in an APC should it take a hit. It can be frustrating in alot of situations but that was a very real problem that most armies of WWII faced, the problem of combining highly mobile tank units with unmotorized infantry. The Italians were a good example of this, their first attempts at forming an armored corp combined tank divisions with unmotorized infantry which quickly led to problems. having to work around these challenges only increases the realism of SP:WAW



Desert Fox -> (11/3/2000 4:30:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Nikademus: the reduced ability to load infantry should stay (IMHO) because it is a rule that can too easily be abused and create unrealistic (if more convienient) situations. having to work around these challenges only increases the realism of SP:WAW
Ack! I hate when people use that argument. I like to think this game is about options, not necessarily operational reality. The reality is that foot units were transported on armored vehicles. It was only a doctrinal issue to dismount infantry when arriving at the battle area. I honestly don't like being restricted on doctrinal issues in the game. If I want to do something different, I should be able to do it. If it is really a problem in multiplayer, then you can set a rule before the match. But again, the physical reality of this is that infantry was transported on armor. No, most countries did not carry infantry into battle on tanks, but they could have. I really think that the troop carrying limit of armored units should be upgraded to reflect this. The game already makes it a really bad idea to carry infantry on a tank in front of a machine gun nest or any other unit. This is the big reason not to carry units on tanks. If you do it, then you lose a lot of men.



Paul Vebber -> (11/3/2000 5:46:00 AM)

The game is about options - and we give you scads - we have to make decisions about how the defaults are set, and having every tank going into combat being loaded with troops, as players invariably do, just wasn't done, and the limitations that having troops on your tank meant can't be modelled correctly, so we simply restricted them. But you can give any tanks you want the ability to haul 30 or 40 guys, the editor allows you to do so...



Randy -> (11/3/2000 12:27:00 PM)

Of all the photos I've seen the Russians seem to be the ones who used tank-born (tank descents)infantry the most. I've even seen photos of Russian tanks towing sleds in the snow. I know that in Vietnam, Marines would ride on top of the LVTP5s. The bottoms were too vulnerable to land mines. So the Marines would put sandbags on top, and then ride up there. Semper Fi Randy



Fredde -> (11/3/2000 2:35:00 PM)

Ouch, imagine a mg opening up on that crowd, would be a blood bath. Sure, one could load just about as many men you want on a tank, but just how well can this tank fight afterwards.. turning the turret will sweep off half of the men, firing the machine guns isn't possible due to three mens sitting just in front of it etc.



RichS -> (11/4/2000 1:31:00 AM)

Reference the practice of mounting infantry on tanks, there were many different schools of thought on the subject. Some quotes from the 22nd US Inf Regt: "The infantry becomes a more fleeting target for enemy automatic weapons. It is difficult for the enemy to traverse and elevate a machine gun from a dug in hedgerow position to bring accurate fire on a tank moving from 8-10 MPH.” "The infantryman on tanks are in a good position to drop grenades into foxholes.” The 22nd put 8 men on Shermans and 6 on light tanks. All rode on the back deck. An engineer company commander from the 33rd Armored Engineer battalion put no more than 4 per tank. In contrast, a Combat Command commander from the 7th Armored Division did not favor using infantry on tanks because it detracted from their mobility and fire power. A lot of these experiences probably are the result of fighting in different types of terrain. I got the above info from a book entitled “Battle Experiences”. -Rich



Nikademus -> (11/4/2000 1:52:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Desert Fox: [B] Ack! I hate when people use that argument. I like to think this game is about options, not necessarily operational reality. yeah??? say that to my face!!! me and all of my Kampfgruppe that is [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/tongue.gif[/img] seriously. I agree in general about options. The more options the better. But there's another old saying too....it goes something to the order of "too much of a good thing" If we're brutally honest with ourselves we are forced to admit that there are some 'options' that are just too irresistable not to use even if we know they are not either realistic or go against doctorine. I agree with you actually on the latter. Being able to operate outside normal procedure is not exactly unusual in war but when a rule hurts realism then i have to support some certain restrictions. its a delicate balance and not everyone will agree thats for certain. [This message has been edited by Nikademus (edited November 03, 2000).]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9052734