Tanks, what is their use?

[glvaca]

Hi guys,

This might seem a silly question but I don't seem to find anything in the manual which explains the value of tanks. I mean, you have an anti-tank value for most units but do tanks add something else then just the combat strenght? If so what?

From my limited experience thusfar it seems very possible to destroy a Russian tank division using just infantry if you have a large enough advantage in numbers.

Some guidelines would be welcome.

Thanks in advance,
Glenn

[golden delicious]

Mechanised units of all types are good at one thing above all else: going places quickly. This is what they should be used for: exploitation or as a reserve. Armour gives additional firepower to fast units and extra resiliency since they will likely be engaged in heavy fighting.

Pure armour on the defensive is also peculiarly invulnerable in TOAW. You have to attack with motorised AT equipment of your own, or at least aircraft, in order to overcome it.

It's possible you're talking about modern warfare, which is a bit different. Anti-tank equipment is more widespread and more potent in the modern era and armour is more vulnerable. You can decide for yourself what the role of the MBT would be in a modern war between great powers. No-one really knows for sure.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Mechanised units of all types are good at one thing above all else: going places quickly. This is what they should be used for: exploitation or as a reserve. Armour gives additional firepower to fast units and extra resiliency since they will likely be engaged in heavy fighting.

Pure armour on the defensive is also peculiarly invulnerable in TOAW. You have to attack with motorised AT equipment of your own, or at least aircraft, in order to overcome it.

It's possible you're talking about modern warfare, which is a bit different. Anti-tank equipment is more widespread and more potent in the modern era and armour is more vulnerable. You can decide for yourself what the role of the MBT would be in a modern war between great powers. No-one really knows for sure.

I'm talking WO2 East Front, FitE scenario.
I find this very strange. The fact that units possess an anti-tank value does indicate that tanks in some place and at certain times had a decisive outcome in the battle. If this wouldn't have been the case then why were so many build?
In any case, if I understand you correctly besides attack, defence and anti-tank values they have no "extra" against soft targets? Or perhaps the extra would be that those soft targets have small anti-tank values? One technique I'e seen makes a comparison between armour value and anti-tank value and then gives a bonus to the side with the advantage. Would that not be possible in TAOW?

I have found that Russian tanks in the opening turns of FitE which are surrounded are easily overcome by infantry alone. Perhaps this is more per scenario design? Perhaps this will change later in the game?

[Chuck2]

Tanks are good because of their speed and cutting edge firepower. You quickly move them around enemy formations to cut off avenues of retreat and supply. The infantry is still expected to move up and eliminate the pocket.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Tanks are good because of their speed and cutting edge firepower. You quickly move them around enemy formations to cut off avenues of retreat and supply. The infantry is still expected to move up and eliminate the pocket.

OK, I agree that's the Blitzkrieg theory and TAOW models it well.
What I'm trying to find out is how their cutting edge firepower translate in to "counter" strength? I'm probably missing something, so perhaps here's the question again:
What besides extra mobility do tanks offer over infantry? Do they have an extra fire phase? Do they inflict more damage? Do they receive less damage? Why is there a separate anti-armour value but not the opposite "armour" value?

Just trying to find out how TAOW ticks.
Thanks
Best,
Glenn

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

OK, I agree that's the Blitzkrieg theory and TAOW models it well.
What I'm trying to find out is how their cutting edge firepower translate in to "counter" strength? I'm probably missing something, so perhaps here's the question again:
What besides extra mobility do tanks offer over infantry? Do they have an extra fire phase? Do they inflict more damage? Do they receive less damage? Why is there a separate anti-armour value but not the opposite "armour" value?

There is a seperate armor value. It doesn't show up on the counter, though. Click on one of the pieces of tank equipment within the unit to see armor values. When combat occurs, the armor value of equipment is compared to the anti-armor value of opposing equipment. The detailed calculations are in the manual.

[liuzg150181]

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

ORIGINAL: glvaca

OK, I agree that's the Blitzkrieg theory and TAOW models it well.
What I'm trying to find out is how their cutting edge firepower translate in to "counter" strength? I'm probably missing something, so perhaps here's the question again:
What besides extra mobility do tanks offer over infantry? Do they have an extra fire phase? Do they inflict more damage? Do they receive less damage? Why is there a separate anti-armour value but not the opposite "armour" value?

There is a seperate armor value. It doesn't show up on the counter, though. Click on one of the pieces of tank equipment within the unit to see armor values. When combat occurs, the armor value of equipment is compared to the anti-armor value of opposing equipment. The detailed calculations are in the manual.

Yup,there is too much information to be shown all at once,just right click an armour unit,select "Show Unit Report" and you shall have a whole list of info,including its composition.
Btw glvaca,it seems you havent finished reading the manual.[:D]

[Uncle_Joe]

Also when attacking, 'mobile' equipment tends to fire more often per round than 'static' equipment. There is a table in the rulebook which shows how many shots each type of unit gets when attacking and defending. IIRC, tanks tend to have amongst the highest numbers of shots whether attacking or defending, making them quite versatile.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: glvaca
Some guidelines would be welcome.

If I remember correctly (I haven’t played TOAW for about 5 years) armor units lose readiness and supply much slower than non-armored units when moving. This allows them to get to defenders much faster than foot/horse drawn units, thus keeping the pressure on and preventing strong fortified positions from developing. Motorized units have this ability as well, but I think off road movement costs pretty much negate the advantage, so motorized formations need to stay on the roads.

Also when pursuing non-armored units, the collective readiness supply loss magnifies the armored units ability to pursue and exploit since the further the defending unit retreats the more readiness it losses, while the armored unit is losing only about half that much per hex moved, thus making them more and more effective the longer the pursuit distance gets.

Also armor is a hard defender which means infantry type equipment and soft attack values for other unit types will be hard pressed to cause significant equipment casualties unless it has very good AT capabilities intrinsic to the unit.

Unfortunately in larger scale battles, Regiment and up, most units will have some level of intrinsic AT capabilities, so armor is less and less valuable as a unique unit type that players can use to their advantage the larger the scale of the scenario gets.

But in smaller scale battles armor can really shine, since most battalion or lower sized units had very limited AT capabilities unless divisional or Corp level assets were doled out to the formation. So in game terms most infantry battalions are probably weak against armor unless another AT capable unit is stacked with them.

Of course late 44 on saw a huge increase in squad AT capabilities during the war (Panzershrecks, Panzerfausts, Bazookas, Piats, etc.) so armor became more vulnerable to infantry as WWII progressed. If a scenario designer is attentive to details, early war infantry battalions should be pretty vulnerable to armored assaults unless stacked with some kind of dedicated AT equipment.

Jim

[glvaca]

[/quote]
Yup,there is too much information to be shown all at once,just right click an armour unit,select "Show Unit Report" and you shall have a whole list of info,including its composition.
Btw glvaca,it seems you havent finished reading the manual.[:D]
[/quote]

Oh well, I gave the manual my best shot and did actually read it all but unfortunately not everything stayed in memory [8|]

[glvaca]

Thanks to all for the info. Now that I know more of what's happening under the hood I'm even more impressed with the game. [&o]

[Central Blue]

Pure armour on the defensive is also peculiarly invulnerable in TOAW.

this seems to be less true in NKOAW III. I have seen some armor units vaporised in Westwall Germany under a cloud of artillery and some infantry. Nor do they seem as inclined to stick around without infantry support