(Full Version)

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

Message

Larry Holt -> (1/17/2001 10:33:00 PM)
I think we need to make a distinction between the technical ability of dismounted troops to kill tanks with improvised means and the training and organization of armies to actually do so. According to an old US manual on German defense against Russian breakthrough attacks that I have, on the eastern front the German infantry's primary tank killing means was infantry with improvised means. The Germans pulled tanks back from infantry units to form reserves and there was a lack of AT guns so they were used in depth, instead of along the front. Thus the German infantry had to build trenches especially for moving unseen up to Soviet tanks attacking their positions. The Germans organized and trained special teams to use improvised AT killing means. This shows that tanks were really vulnerable to infantry improvised means. But it does not imply that ALL infantry of ALL nations at ALL times should be able to routinely use improvised means successfully. The manual also mentions that experience was a real confidence builder. Thus the morale/experience check should be a major deciding factor in the success of the attack. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

Paul Vebber -> (1/17/2001 10:43:00 PM)
4.6 makes the "pre-assualt morale check" much tougher to pass...

krull -> (1/18/2001 2:16:00 AM)
Yall got a point there i never did understand crews and lone snipers killing tanks. I for one As a Sniper during 1960 to 1991( last part as a instructor) WOULDNT leave my camoed spot to assault no tank [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Nor do i remeber crews carrying any thing besides pistols and some had M1 carbines or subs. That i agree with. Thru Mortars will supress ya ever seen a 81 mm Hit a tank makes a load Boom and if Ya dont have on side skirts POOF usualy no track or Worst I ever saw was landed on gun barrel A 82 mm No main gun after that just MGs. SO yes arty and mortars are supressive even if dont do much damage it takes alot to keep going thru that ind of fire cause ya dont know what it is? Is it a RPG hitting ya and artillary shell another tank?

Major_Johnson -> (1/18/2001 4:44:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Paul Vebber: 4.6 makes the "pre-assualt morale check" much tougher to pass... I do hope that goes for the AI too!! Fairs fair now. ------------------ MJ We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.

JTGEN -> (1/26/2001 12:58:00 AM)
It's good point about those national characteristics. It is inpossible to have Finnish battless with realistic amounts of AT-guns in the early war. That would be like two 45mm AT's for the big map. Rest of the tank killing would have to be made by infartry, but with current settings it would be too messy or impossible. Here is a suggestion: If a tank tumbles into a couple of men with no heavy weapons. They are inside the "blind" zone. They place a biggish stone on the tracks and it will brake them when entering the wheel at the end of the tracks that delivers the movement. So the tank is immobilized, but not destroyed. This is a far out example so do not crusify me please. In the Finnish movie Winter War one of the guys place a piece of wood on the tracks that jams the transmission and then it is burned with a molotow coctail. One problem here is that in the game the distance where the tanks can see the infartry and thus shoot at them is often not at place. Somebody said than when assaulting from neighbouring hex the men must advance 50m to get to the tank. But in a thick forest with bushes the tank can not see much of anything and the infartry is allready in the blind zone before the tank can see them and therefore the tank should never go unescorted to forest. But the game does not make this possible as the tanks can see the infartry at 50m in the forest. It is like they would be standing there wawing their hands to the tank. Especially if the infartry is dug in and the tank tumbles into their position without escort, it should be dead. The picture is wholy different in the open where it would be suicide to attack a tank with say molotow for example. Same is with the speed of the tank. In the game they can go 20mph in to the forest. In the real life I do not think so. They would probably brake the transmission. Have you by the way noticed that when infartry dismounts from say m3 for example the carrier and the infartry can be doing 30mph. Those sure are mobile soldiers and it effects the hit chances. Bug? Sure but can not get everything. Also I have not seen big differences in the accuracy of Bazookas against fast moving and ststionary tanks from the distance of 3 hexes. There should be a huge difference. In U to R my bazooka teams with 90 experience and no suppression had 1/3 chance of hitting a stationary tank from 2 hexes or even 1 hex distance. Far too low chance. Also the tanks can always see where the shot came from and see the two men in the hex that is 50*50 size. No way this would be the case in real life. There are many other such things that reduce the reality factor in the game but it is still the best game I have ever played.

USMCGrunt -> (1/26/2001 1:18:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by JTGEN: Also the tanks can always see where the shot came from and see the two men in the hex that is 50*50 size. No way this would be the case in real life. There are many other such things that reduce the reality factor in the game but it is still the best game I have ever played. JTGEN, Spotting these units is not unrealistic at all. Having fired a number of antitank rocket weapons, I can say that the cloud of dust and debris these things raise is very noticeable. In the Marine Corps, the survival of a Dragon ATGM gunner after his initial shot against advancing armor was rated at about 11% for the first 20 seconds. (Not a very good rating at all.) You need to also take into condideration the positions these weapons were fired from. The M1 and M9 bazookas were usually fired from a sitting position, not prone. If you tried to fire one prone, expect some nice burns on your back and legs. Also, you have to have a reasonably clear area behind you. This leaves out the possibility of firing from inside a small building, and you better make sure that the rear exhaust is up over the edge of the foxhole you're sitting in. Just a few things to think about. ------------------ USMCGrunt -When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.

JTGEN -> (2/9/2001 10:36:00 PM)
I do not think it is that easy. Comparing the use of dragon and short range weapons is not wery good. I do not know the dragon outside SP2 but think it is suppose to be used in open area. Also the mark left by it can be thus more easily spotted especially if fired from the front to the tank. And if there is more than one spotting unit. But that is not what I am talking about at all. Using short range weapon to the rear of the tank were wisibility from the tank is limited and in terrain giving good cover shoul give the user of such weapon enough time to conseal himself before the tank can spot him. The user would probably not stand still in open ground unless he is a total moron and thus deserves to get shot. Also if for example in entrenched position the tank has good chance of killing part of anti tank team even when they do not leave the trenches. But the time involved in turning the turret and aiming, the men should have had enough time to get away from the machineguns, or the trenches are not made wery well. At least the ones I digged in the army would have given me a shelter against such burst and also allowed me to change position without been seen from a tank 50m away. One bug in the game is also that bullbub machineguns in the front of the tank can shoot backwards without the tank been turned.

chaos45 -> (2/11/2001 3:12:00 PM)
On this post I only have to say this. As long as an infantry squad has handgrenades, or molotovs it should be able to destroy a tank. If a squad only has machineguns and rifles then it shouldnt even have a chance. In the game unescorted tanks get destroyed, thats how I think it should be, and how it was historically. When in a city or woods what did tank commanders want, infantry as it should be. Armored units had motorized infantry for a reason, not just to joyride.

orc4hire -> (2/11/2001 5:10:00 PM)
It's always entertaining to read here about the awesome anti-armor destructive power of the humble hand grenade, which so far exceeds that of any specially designed anti-tank weapon that armored crews quiver in terror at the thought of passing within a couple hundred yards of an infantryman unless they have infantry of their own clinging to the outside of the tank to protect its tender skin with their bodies.... 2 points, chaos45. First. You think it is reasonable that infantry have enormous powers of destruction against any tank that passes within 50 yards of it (and a slightly more modest ability to cast their death rays out to 200 yards or so, with the issuing of RPGs to troops of all time periods), unless the tank has friendly infantry stuck to its hull. Some people agree with you. And others think that's silly. I have to disagree with the sweeping grandeur of your statement that all infantry of all periods, nationalities, and services, should always be able to take out a tank if they have access to a fragmentation grenade or some gasoline. Some infantry, of some nationalities, particularly later in the period, specially trained and equipped, were very dangerous indeed. A lot of the infantry, particularly in the earlier part of the period were far, far more likely to flee in terror from the tanks than the tanks were to flee in terror from them.

victorhauser -> (2/11/2001 10:56:00 PM)
The real problem, the real bottom line, is that nobody really knows for sure what a good baseline "percentage" is for infantry to destroy vehicles in combat. I believe that this is a trial-and-error process: step 1) choose an arbitrary baseline destruction percentage; step 2) playtest many close assaults against enemy vehicles; step 3) adjust the arbitrary baseline destruction percentage if the results don't "feel" right; step 4) repeat steps 2 and 3 until the results do "feel" right. This is more art than science, guys. And there are as many opinions as to what the "arbitrary baseline destruction percentage" should be as there are players of the game. I do know that I'm reasonably satisfied with the close-assault results that I see in v4.5. I predict that if those results (and percentages) change drastically from v4.5 to v4.6(5.0??) then there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth (which will probably then need to be re-adjusted in v4.7(5.1??) and after). Another issue is that if both the morale check is made more difficult AND the "arbitrary baseline destruction percentage" is reduced, then the combination of those two factors will DRASTICALLY degrade the ability of infantry to successfully assault enemy vehicles. And that worries me because I'm not terribly unhappy with the outcomes I've been experiencing in v4.5. On the other hand, I am very much in favor of historical unit TO/Es. I believe that simply making infantry TO/Es historical (to the degree possible) will go farther towards making infantry assaults "feel" more "historically realistic" than to begin a painful and laborious trial-and-error process of tweaking the assault-morale-check and baseline-destruction percentages (a process that will never satisfy everybody and could take years to complete).

orc4hire -> (2/12/2001 1:36:00 AM)
victorhauser, Well, the adjustment of the destruction percentages is the removal of a BUG that was tripling those percentages from what the intended baseline.

CaptainBrian -> (2/12/2001 8:14:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by orc4hire: I have to disagree with the sweeping grandeur of your statement that all infantry of all periods, nationalities, and services, should always be able to take out a tank if they have access to a fragmentation grenade or some gasoline. Some infantry, of some nationalities, particularly later in the period, specially trained and equipped, were very dangerous indeed. A lot of the infantry, particularly in the earlier part of the period were far, far more likely to flee in terror from the tanks than the tanks were to flee in terror from them. There truly seems to be no constant in the ability of nation's infantry to deal with tanks... compare these widely different results of Japanese (in game terms, some of the most prolific antitank infantry) antitank efforts from approximately the same time frame: vs U. S. Army, Okinawa April 1945. The 7th Infantry Division sent a battalion of tanks to make an unsupported attack against Japanese positions on Kakazu Ridge. 31 tanks were destroyed, with minimal losses to the Japanese. vs. USSR, Pamientung Manchuria August 1945. "Each individual... armed himself with explosives and rushed the enemy tanks. Although minor damage was inflicted on a majority...the explosives were not of sufficient strength to halt the tanks." (August Storm: Soviet Tactical and Operational Combat in Manchuria, 1945. COL David M. Glantz U.S. Army Retired) One possibility is to incorporate an "Infantry vs. Tanks" toggle switch, much like the Artillery effectiveness buttons. No way will everyone ever be happy.

CaptainBrian -> (2/12/2001 8:36:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by orc4hire: I have to disagree with the sweeping grandeur of your statement that all infantry of all periods, nationalities, and services, should always be able to take out a tank if they have access to a fragmentation grenade or some gasoline. Some infantry, of some nationalities, particularly later in the period, specially trained and equipped, were very dangerous indeed. A lot of the infantry, particularly in the earlier part of the period were far, far more likely to flee in terror from the tanks than the tanks were to flee in terror from them. In historical practice, the results could be very erratic. Compare these two Japanese (some of the best AT Infantry in the game) efforts in late 1945: Okinawa April 1945 vs. U. S. Army. The U. S. 7th Infantry Division sent an unsupported tank battalion against Japanese positions on Kakazu ridge. Final result- 31 tanks destroyed by satchel charge armed infantry. Pamientung Manchuria, August 1945 vs. USSR. "Each individual... armed himself with explosives and rushed the enemy tanks. Although minor damage was inflicted...the explosives were not (strong enough) to halt the tanks." (August Storm: Soviet Tactical and Operational Combat in Manchuria, 1945. Colonel David M. Glantz U. S. Army Retired). Going back to Okinawa...the First Marine Division was the only U. S. unit to not lose a single tank to enemy action, a definite validation of their tank/infantry trainingand coordination, in short combined arms warfare. One possibility is to incorporate an "Infantry vs. Tanks" toggle switch (just like the artillery effectiveness toggles) in the preferences menu. Just like many other subjects/functions, one solution will not fit all.

mogami -> (2/12/2001 8:49:00 AM)
Hi, unsupported armour against formed infantry is a mistake...this does not mean commanders don't keep trying. The tank was designed to carry a cannon/machine through small arms fire to points close enough for it to achive fire superority and allow it's infantry to take the position. It was thought to be a "feared weapon" like the Carthagian elephant. The result of course was the advent of the anti-tank gun. Which again meant the tanks needed the support of infantry. Like the elephant of old it was also found that if the enemy did not panic they could in fact kill the tank which also spelled the need for close infantry support...this gave birth to the armoured infantry which road to battle with the tanks in armoured personal carriers and dismounted when needed but could fight from the vehicle (something they can not do in SPWAW). Trained/formed infantry need not fear unsupported tanks. They require no speacial weapons other then the knowledge all they need do is board the tank (hence the grenade launcher on most modern/late WWII tanks) Infantry equipped with tank killing weapons and cover/concealment have a great advantage over unsupported tanks. Infantry with out tank support suffer greatly when opposed by combined arms as it should be. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

craig77 -> (2/12/2001 10:18:00 AM)
The German Army Handbook by Buchner has several pages dedicated to describing close combat with tanks. Here is a summary. In 1939-1940 Infantry had One AT rifle per platoon and each man was equipped with 10 armor piercing rounds. This equipment was found to be unsatisfactory during the Russian campaign. (Not that it was not poor in France of Poland, just that in those campaigns AT guns and Stukas leveled the playing field). OKH declared Close Anti Tank Combat as a knew form of combat. Training began in ernest. As the Russian campaign continued tanks were now being attacked with increasing effect by infantry. Attacking a tank was a simple decision. KILL or BE KILLED. Early on primary means of destroying a tank was with makeshift weapons. Creating smoke using Gasoline or damp hay or similar items ignited by flare pistols. Rags soaked in flammables, pouring gasoline into a tank, blinding optics with mud and paint. Covering ports and optics with canvas covers. Crowbars and similar items always kept ready by the infantry used to open hatches for pistol shots or hand grenades. Anything thrown down the main gun barrel. Throwing grenades down the barrel. (Author says he has disabled three tanks by sliding grenades down a barrel). Smoke grenades, flares. Cause smoke to get sucked into the tank through ventilation, many times crew will evacuate. Concentric handgrenades, 1kg explosive charges, Molotovs. 3kg concentric explosive charges, T-mines. Guidlines were set on how to make and use makeshift weapons. In 1942 infantry began getting purpose built equipment. Close combat teams consisted of four men. 1 leader equipped with MPi, two hand grenades, two smoke grenades and a spade. 1 tank blinder equipped with pistol, smoke bombs, two hand grenades, two twin smoke grenades and a spade. 1 tank destroyer equipped with pistol, smoke bombs, one magnetic charge, one T-mine with anchor hooks or a 3kg concentric charge. Several detinators, two handgrenades, and a spade. 1 securer equipped smae as destroyer. A special decoration was was introduced in March 1942 for anyone who destroys a tank in close combat. Around 14,000 were eventually awarded. So basically sometime in 1941 the German Infantry should get an improvement on close assault to simulate the use of improvised weapons along with training. Of course as the was dragged on tanks became more immune (through better designing)to smoke inhalation, flame throwers, molotovs,poured flammables etc... Somewhere in one of my books there is a table breaking down the number of tanks destroyed and by what means. Most are destroyed by Tank or Anti tank guns. Few by close assault and Panzerfaust. Craig

orc4hire -> (2/12/2001 12:15:00 PM)
Every 3rd post here talks about how vulnerable 'unsupported' tanks are to infantry... the trouble is the definition of unsupported. Infantry following close behind a tank _will not_ protect it in SP. Only infantry _between_ the enemy infantry and the tank, or infantry actually stuck to the tank's exterior as auxiliary armor. If you have hostile infantry 1 hex (50 yards) in front of a tank, and friendly infantry 1 hex (50 yards) behind, the enemy infantry will close assault, and likely as not destroy the tank without the friendly supporting infantry being able to react. (Incidently creating a smoke hex from the wreck, blocking the friendly infantry's line of sight and assuring that they will take some casualties from op-fire if they try and get close enough to attack the enemy squad.) So, how close to the tank does infantry have to be to be considered 'supporting'? In SP, they have to be in physical contact. Note, that doctrine generally held that the infantry _followed_ the tanks. In SP, of course, this is suicide; tanks are far too fragile to risk running into hostile forces. Oh, and since we're quoting.... From EXAMPLES OF EMPLOYMENT OF TANKS IN NIGHT FIGHTING ON THE EUROPEAN LAND MASS DURING WORLD WAR II: "(2) Mark IV and Panther tanks of the 3d Panzer Regiment reached a roadblock protecting Bastogne and defended by an understrength tank battalion of CCR, 9th Armored Division after darkness on 17 December 1944. Sweeping the area with machine gun fire to clear any infantry who might be protecting the American tanks, the panzers overran and destroyed two tank platoons, set other vehicles ablaze with tracer bullets, and knocked out the roadblock. Pp. 295-296." Heavens to betsy! Unsupported tanks overrunning a roadblock protected by a mixed force, at night and in close terrain no less. How could such a thing be possible? Why did the ferocious infantry not just whip out their trusty P-38 C-rat can openers, pop the tops on the panzers and beat the crewmen to death with a rolled up field manual? From a 'Lessons Learned' document, from the field, 16 June, 1944: "d, The combined use of armored and infantry units has been too cautious. The over-emphasis placed on fire power of tankts during the period when weather and terrain conditions prevented full use of armor has not been overcome and mobility has not been restored to its proper importance in the employment of tanks. Too often a column of tanks has remained inactive on a road, held up by a single SP or AT gun. The time lost waiting for infantry to arrive, deploy and attack the gun could have been reduced 50% or more by a rapid deployment and movement of the tanks or by a wide envelopment which would in most cases have resulted in the capture or destruction of the gun. Likewise, relatively large groups of infantry have been long delayed by a small enemy group with a machine gun or two astride a road. Again, the time waited waiting for the arrival and action of tanks could have been materially reduced by early and wide deployment." I am so staggered that I can barely type.... American doctrine suggesting that maybe tanks _shouldn't_ always wait for the infantry to show up (but what would tanks be doing wandering around without infantry stuck to them? Don't they know that that's suicide?), but rather take care of the situation themselves? From the U.S. War Department "Handbook On German Military Forces" (Mar'45) TM-E 30-451 "A typical attack formation of this type might be divided up among the Panzer division's units as follows: the first wave, on a frontage of about 2,000 to 3,000 yards, might consist of one tank battalion, two companies forward, supported on the flanks by elements of the assault gun battalion. Close to the rear of the first wave usually follow one or two Panzer Grenadier companies in armored half-tracks. About 150 yards to the rear of the first wave moves the second wave, formed of the second tank battalion in the same formation, closely followed by the remainder of the armored Panzer Grenadiers, who are in turn followed at some distance by the motorized Panzer Grenadiers. The flanks are protected by antitank guns which normally operate by platoons, moving by bounds. The artillery forward observer travels in his armored vehicles with the first wave, while the artillery commander of the supporting artillery units usually travels with the tank commander. Assault guns normally also accompany the second wave." Why, those wacky Germans; leading with their tanks like that. They can't possibly have ever won a battle that way.

AmmoSgt -> (2/12/2001 1:49:00 PM)
orc4 thats the whole point isn't it the Germans did lose the war and most of the battles involved ..it worked a few times early on ..but after the first few times folks didn't get up and run away just because tanks were coming.. the example of the night fighting at Bastogne ..if that example was in any way indicative of how the Battle of the Bulge went or even the fighting around Bastogne proper then why did the Germans lose so badly at Bastogne and the Bulge in general ... Mad men thinking tanks were some superweapon that could replace tactics is why they lost and usually why the Germans lose in PBEM Human on Human ... If you think i am wrong you can always join Combat Command and show me Hehehheeeeh said the spider to the fly heheheeehee [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/eek.gif[/img]

orc4hire -> (2/12/2001 2:31:00 PM)
AmmoSGT, did you check out the date on that document? 1945. That was the tactics the Germans developed _after_ infantry got fairly comfortable with the idea of standing off tanks, and had the equipment to do so fairly well. Note also that the infantry were trailing by less than 150 yards -- 3 SP hexes. Probably more like 50-100 yards. In the real world, that's supporting distance. In SP, they might as well not be there. The German tactics worked 'a few times'? Then everyone noticed that those tactics sucked, and the Germans lost the war? Good thing the Arabs never noticed that the Israeli's were using German tactics, or they would have lost too, huh? Or the US in Desert Storm... good thing Saddam never read his history.... Oh, wait; even in WWII a lot of the time American tanks led the way in assaults, with the infantry following in a supporting role, just like the Germans. I guess that's why we lost too, huh? Oh, wait... we didn't lose, did we? The incident from the battle of the bulge wasn't supposed to indicate how the entire battle went, it was to indicate that tanks did on occasion successfully take out infantry positions, even late in the war. What would have been your argument if the example had happened to be American tanks taking out a German roadblock? Here's one (same source): "The 1st SS Panzer Division sent a column composed of infantry and assault guns toward Recht. About 0200, the advance guard hit the village defended by a tank battalion operating under the headquarters of CCR, 7th Armored Division. Unwilling to risk his tanks without infantry protection in a night fight through narrow streets and uncertain of the German strength, the American commander ordered a withdrawal after a sharp 450-minute engagement. P. 280." Unsupported tanks in a village standing off a combined arms force for 7.5 hours, only withdrawing to avoid a night fight. The point is that with the BUG currently in the close assault routines, SP does not model infantry/armor interaction properly. The point is that a sniper should not 'of course' be able to take out an AFV zipping down the road past him more often than not. The point is that not all infantry from '31 to '49 were equal and people who say, "Infantry could do this," and "Infantry could do that," as if a squad of Chinese peasant conscrips in 1931 were the same as a squad of US Army Rangers in 1945 are rather missing the point.

AmmoSgt -> (2/12/2001 5:15:00 PM)
nobody leads with tanks most armies have and will lead with recon of some sort desert storm the lead elements were recon and arty prep and air strikes ...i give up .. geeze ... doctrine is guidelines i am sure if you read just a little farther they are going to talk about terrain considerations differences for urban and forrest and open terrain and technical stuff like that ....If you want to run around with your supporting infantry in the rear in terrain where the tanks should be the support yeah hey you think everything is in support of tanks ok fine some countries do it the other way around they advance infantry with tanks in support for short visibility situtions ... but if you think even the U S Army went tearing around a wide open desert even with thermal imagry and there was no recon out in front well then we have identified the problem haven't we ....

krull -> (2/12/2001 7:48:00 PM)
HMmm bud I dont know which group in Desert storm ya talking about but the marine assaults where led by infantry in amtracs and hmmvs. The tanks couldnt keep up. And contray to some armored cav gys i know even that new m1a2 cant outrun a hmmv hahah thru it was a nice race [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Still Infantry back then rarely held there own vs tanks unless they had some cover. As most smart tank commanders werent or hopefully werent dum enough to attack infantry in cover as in towns or woods. Some did but nuthing every works out like the books say in real warfare simply because man is so adaptable and lady luck has a say so herself. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]

mogami -> (2/12/2001 8:28:00 PM)
Hi, towards the end the germans were searching for a way to off set the numbers. Here is a very scary story....But pay attention even those wacky rocket scientist germans realized the need for infantry support....well some of them anyway, thank goodness there were a few dumb germans. Little story: Panthers with Infrared in Combat. Some reports tell of a late-war combat involving IR Panthers that were equipped, which encountered a British armoured division. A British unit equipped with Comet tanks was engaged in April 1945 (at night) by some solution B-type IR Panthers. In a short one-sided firefight, the entire platoon was annihilated. Some farsighted officers of the Fallingbostel armour school formed basic tactics for equipped tank units. They planned to establish special night task forces. Panthers fitted with triple IR devices formed the core of these units. These tanks had three huge armour plates welded on the engine deck, thus offering protection on the sides and rear for three infantrymen. These troops had to protect "their" Panther with MP 44 assault rifles, which could be fitted with IR devices in its final version.[Vampir]. The IR Panther would be followed into combat by Sd.Kfz. 251/21 "Falke" vehicles carrying a number of infantrymen armed with MP 44s. The attack would have been backed, whenever possible, by Sd.Kfz. 251/20s fitted with 60 cm "Uhu" IR search lights. Units that were equipped in this manner would surely have had an enormous impact on enemy units that lacked IR devices. In the Spring of 1944 about 1000 IR aiming devices were ready but army officials rejected their use. The ready and working devices were stored in a salt mine in the Harz mountains. A general was quoted as saying, "We don't need any stuff like this, our soldiers will win the war chivalrously". Now of course you don't need as much infantry support if the path is being cleared by swarms of stukas but I still recommend taking some. When infantry is in support of tanks it means they engage units capable of killing tanks. If you are keeping them behind all the time you need to learn "overwatch" and "bounding overwatch" and what those little 2-4 man units called recon are for. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction! [This message has been edited by Mogami (edited February 12, 2001).]

Charles22 -> (2/12/2001 10:16:00 PM)
Has anybody ever experienced this? I started a Russian campaign and the first battle was against a Finnish assault. It went very badly for my side. In any case I had one KV1 which the enemy could scarcely destroy (armor of 75, except for the rear which is 60). I don't know if the tank got immobilised or what, but it was surrounded at one point by like 12 infantry type units. For a turn or two, with me unable to rally it, the enemy for some reason decided to not attack it for like two straight turns. When I recovered the unit to be able to fire off a couple of the rounds, some of the units had moved on to well beyond the tank's rear. Before I fired, I looked around at how many units I could spot and there still were quite a few. Fired off my round, and in opfire the tank was assaulted a minimum of FIVE TIMES but more between 6-7 times before it was destroyed. What is this!!!??? Now you may say the superior Finn experience enabled more assaults, but I've been on the reverse side of that arrangement far more often than been the victim (with huge experience/morale against a foe with neither in good stead) and I have NEVER had more than two assaults to a unit's fire. I have a very sore spot from that rip-off engagement, though I knew my unit was doomed anyway. After that, I gave up entirely on playing against an enemy who could assault one of my units between 5-7 times (one per unit I imagine) for my one shot fired. The only thing I could do in a situation where I'm being mobbed like that, is to only fire in opfire, so that I'm basically fighting one-to-one. I don't think it's right that my one unit should've been assaulted only twice by all of those units (did I just say that?), but it's quite unfair for me not to be able to do it also. OTOH, I can understand one unit assaulting every single unit that comes into a hex it's guarding, due to opfire, as I understand that entrenched units tend to get hyper, and I've certainly benefitted from that before, but what outrages me is that "I" was the one entrenched, not the Finns. If I had been on a level playing field, though the troops fought bravely, I would slaughtered the whole lot of the Finn army, but I was obligated to being only able to counter any Finn move with only two opfires. Thanks. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited February 12, 2001).]

orc4hire -> (2/12/2001 10:27:00 PM)
Ammosgt, Well geez, you think maybe it's possible that all German tactics (or anyone elses) can't be summed up in 1 extracted paragraph? You think maybe I've read more than that 1 paragraph? You think maybe I didn't feel like cutting and pasting several books worth of text into a message on a game forum just to try and convince people that maybe it was NOT standard docrtine OR PRACTICE for anyone to have infantry (that being guys ON FOOT) preceding the vehicles under any and all circumstances in which the enemy might be encountered. If you think not, well, I guess we've identified the problem, haven't we? But you apparantly think it's US practice to have guys walking the ground in front of every vehicle to make sure there isn't a sniper waiting with a grenade to blow it up when it drives by, so I guess there's no point trying to reason with you. Krull, Bud, I'm talking about, for example, "Getting It Right" by Dunnigan and Macedonia, who detail, among other things, the tactics the US Army adopted from German practice. And I remind you that as far as SP is concerned, Bradley's and HUMVEES AREN'T INFANTRY. They're vehicles, just like tanks, only they blow up a little easier. The technical term for the infantry on the HT you run down the road ahead of your tanks is 'casualties.'

krull -> (2/13/2001 12:49:00 AM)
sounds good to me orc4hire thru some officer told me to run infront of any tank. Id think Id have to say you first.Not to mention IF i had to and survived After it ws over id wup some tanker but soon as i found em [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] But alot this post here are right many specialy earlie rin war would run from tansk simply cause they had not seen warfare where big ugly vehicles with big guns came charging at ya. By the way to a infantry man even a 37mm looks big if its shooting in yer direction [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] But tahst where game limits come in can't have everything real or it wouldnt be a game. Designers strill ahve to make it so french troops can fight vs big german tanks even if historicaly the ran simply because some player MIGHT liek to be the french.

frank1970 -> (2/13/2001 3:46:00 PM)
The whole discussion about support of tanks by infantry is quite interesting. But have you ever thought about the fact that any army had Spws and today almost every infantry unit in every modern army uses armored transorters? The German word for those SPWs is "Schuetzenpanzer", which means a armored vehicle which transports infantry. The early German tank tactics were only possible because of the fast transported infantry (on trucks, later on Spws). The artillery was transported by trucks, too, later SPA was used. But there are examples for the tank only method, too: The attack through the Maginot line by the 7.Pz Div for example. At first infantry and pioneers made a breach into the first fortification line, then the tanks broke through, unsupported by infantry, through 2 further fortification lines. It worked. The commanding general was Rommel. What I want to say is that the supported tank attack was the standard method and every army of the world uses it today - BUT there are other situations where other methods may bring the same results.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.046875