Seeking feedback on Armored Units Combat

[Dili]

I would like to know if those that played the game feel that Armored Units have too much or too low power in combat against Infantry Units in WITP and if they have the often decisive abilities for attack that armored units earned in Second World War.

[el cid again]

Armor in PTO was very different than armor in ETO. The terrain was not favorable to armor operation. There was only one signficant armor vs armor battle (if it can even be called that) between major US and Japanese armored formations - on Luzon - in 1945 (involving elements of the 2nd Tank Division IJA). The Japanese were never able to fire for effect because the US declined to enter battle space in range of the short range 57mm guns on the by then wholly obsolete guns in use. [Too much can be made of the obsolete nature of the Chi-Ha: when introduced it was a very competative tank and ahead of Western tanks in propulsion technology - something we didn't adopt until after WWII but used almost universally long thereafter. Japanese tanks - after the early Type 89A - used diesel propulsion - a much less fire prone and more fuel efficient technology - as did most Japanese military vehicles; this was developed in Japan specifically for cold weather operations in China in the 1930s- leading even German ideas on the matter. But no tank shoud be used way past its time.]

Armor was a significant influence when the enemy was not able to defend against it effectively- instances of even single or pairs of light tanks being a major factor being fairly numerous. It appears WITP well models these effects - not so much because of firepower effects as because of the semi-abstract way vehicles are used in the routing. Possibly also because of some way of classifying the unit or vehicle. Seems to matter a bit. It is less clear the late war situation is well done? Since we don't get there much - it is hard to know. Do anti-tank weapons count? Do IJA anti-tank teams- which forced extraordinary measures on US tanks - count? [We didn't cover tanks with wood because magnetic weapons were not a threat.]

[Dili]

Thanks El Cid. I was also thinking on feedback from players with the Soviets in Manchuria, if they struggle to advance too much against comparatively weak infantry.

[el cid again]

The way WITP is programmed data wise - "comparatively weak infantry" is wholly missing in the North.
The Soviets are grossly overrated - even in RHS (because it is hard to change many units, harder still to figure out what they should be changed to). If you accept CHS data (and RHS more or less IS CHS) - the Russian infantry is better than the Japanese, the USMC, the British, everyone.

[Dili]

I can understand some dificulty of nimble Japanese tanks going after Russian Infantry or any other. My question was more the T-34, SP's etc going after Japanese Infantry. 

[el cid again]

AI seems unwilling to try. Even when at war!

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I would like to know if those that played the game feel that Armored Units have too much or too low power in combat against Infantry Units in WITP and if they have the often decisive abilities for attack that armored units earned in Second World War.

I had an infantry brigade garrisoning a base complex overrun in Burma by a Japanese tank regiment. I used to do operations analysis for ground combat operations, so I found it a bit weird in that specific context. (An infantry brigade/regiment was the preferred garrison for major base complexes in WWII. It was big enough to defend everything and not so big as to be a waste of troops.)

[el cid again]

Well - yes - but early in WWII the Allies had virtually no AT weapons - and they were so terrified the mere thought it might be Japanese tanks won the battle!
In Malaya troops ran at the SOUND of Japanese INFANTRY - their bikes were running on rims on the paved roads!!!!

[Dili]

I had an infantry brigade garrisoning a base complex overrun in Burma by a Japanese tank regiment. I used to do operations analysis for ground combat operations, so I found it a bit weird in that specific context. (An infantry brigade/regiment was the preferred garrison for major base complexes in WWII. It was big enough to defend everything and not so big as to be a waste of troops.)

 
Thanks Herwin good feedback. I suppose you didnt checked moral, disruption and supply of that Infantry Unit. 

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I had an infantry brigade garrisoning a base complex overrun in Burma by a Japanese tank regiment. I used to do operations analysis for ground combat operations, so I found it a bit weird in that specific context. (An infantry brigade/regiment was the preferred garrison for major base complexes in WWII. It was big enough to defend everything and not so big as to be a waste of troops.)

Thanks Herwin good feedback. I suppose you didnt checked moral, disruption and supply of that Infantry Unit. 

5000+ supply, morale ~70, low fatigue, reasonably good leadership. Reduced to 8 AV in the combat results computation.

[Dili]

Okay, thanks herwin.