Major concern: Armor

[Sheytan]

You doubt tanks fell victim to improvised AT weapons? I am not sure I follow.

Gunter Viezenz was a infantryman whom was awarded a number of tank assault badges. He apparently was credited with 21 kills using a wide array of infantry AT weapons. Bear in mind such things as gernade bundles was a AT weapon at the time. In fact if you spent some time reading up on the subject I think you will be suprised at how innovative soldiers were in created field expedient weapons to kill...tanks. So yes I stand by my comment that NOT including a AT value irrespective of dedicated AT weapons is a mistake. Something as simple as smoke could force a tank crew to dismount. Firing into viewports or slits could kill or disable a crew. Fire...MOLOTOV cocktails were VERY effective in disabling or destroying a tank or AFV. In fact I just read a article that was originally Russian in origin in which they outlined how to kill a tiger tank via close assault and other means, and where the specific vulerabilities of the tiger were. For example the traveling gear, IE, sprocket wheel, treads etc were vulenarable to HE fire. At least ten points on the vehicle were deemed assaultable with fire. And to sum it up, all it took was a gernade bundle, a jerry can, and some guts and one could kill a tank.

If you expect me to compile a list of all armored vehilces killed by infantry using field expeident AT weapons I dont think such a statistic exists. Frankly your desire to ignore this by challenging me to find a number and source for you speaks volumes. I wish you and Panther games the best of luck. And on that note...

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

Even without dedicated AT weapons the infantry should have a close assault AT value. Lack thereof is a serious ommision. Many tanks in WW2 fell prey to improvised AT weapons like the molotov cocktail especially in urban or built up areas.

I very much doubt this. I'd be interested to see your sources.

[Nico165b165]

Some interesting points here.

I am no specialist when it comes about infantry AT capabilities. But i saw once in this game a Tiger II bataillon with no AP/HE munitions left and only a few mg bullets hold a town without any losses for a few hours against enemy infantry. It was a bit strange to look at.

Now on the global armor balance and because the exemple of KG Peiper has been mentionned here, I have an interesting excerpt from a french book called "La route des massacres".

It is about mechanical failure :

When the KG took the road from Möderscheid to Thirimont ... At this moment, Peiper who had lost his Panther in Büllingen due to a breakdown, take place in Diefenthal's SPW.
...
Armored losses from the KG are now 3 Pz IV and 3 Panther destroyed; 8 Panther and 4 Pz IV broke down.

This is of course before any real heavy engagement, but 12 tanks lost in one tank bataillon on mechanical failure before the real battle surely is an important fact; I know there is a "reliability" value for tanks and every arm in command ops but I am not sure how it works.

[Sheytan]

Here is another example of field expedient AT defense. From the period your game covers.

Solis ordered his detachment to retire to the top of the hill above Stavelot, but in the confusion of disengagement the remaining antitank weapons and all but one of the rifle platoons fell back along the Malmédy road. With German tanks climbing behind the lone platoon and without any means of antitank defense, Solis seized some of the gasoline from the Francorchamps dump, had his men pour it out in a deep road cut, where there was no turn-out, and set it ablaze. The result was a perfect antitank barrier. The German tanks turned back to Stavelot-this was the closest that Kampfgruppe Peiper ever came to the great stores of gasoline which might have taken the 1st SS Panzer Division to the Meuse River. Solis had burned 124,000

[266]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gallons for his improvised roadblock, but this was the only part of the First Army's POL reserve lost during the entire Ardennes operation.

Regarding the game engine, it dosnt have the capability of modeling this sort of event, yet they did happen, and had a conesquence out of proportion of the action. Precisely why each and every unit has a AT capability outside of thier organic AT weapons. One other note to you, as a Infantryman trainee at Fort Benning we were instructed in how to make ... Molotov cocktails. What materials to use to make the brew more "sticky" etc. I was trained in 1980. Clearly field expeident AT weapons were not only important in WW2, but worthy enough of attention to teach 35 years later to this Infantryman.

[Arimus]

I question wether enough tanks were destroyed by such means in the Battle of the Bulge to make it worth trying to model in this game.
 

[Sheytan]

You may have a valid point. The problem is difficult because there is very little documentation on how many AFV's were destroyed by such means. What is clear however is WW2 has many many examples of field expeident AT defense without conventional AT weapons, organic or otherwise. Heck the germans recognized this was such a extraordinary event that a special badge was created to honor those that did kill tanks in close combat.

While I conceed the rate of these events may have been "remote" not only did they happen, they also are quoted in some of the most extraordinary defenses mounted. It isnt a issue of did it, it did, but can they. And by that I mean not factoring this into the infantry company cability is a serious ommision by doing so. Any infantry unti with out AT ogranics was capable of mounting a AT defense, what it revolved around may seem mundane, but they did have the ability to do so.

Edited to add, failure to grant this capability is frankly in my view a weakness of the research done by Panther games on the extent field expeident AT impacted the battlefield. Again it existed, a entire array of weapons were crafted around doing just this, and FM's were written to handle precisely this scenario. What is remarakable is that field expedient AT weapons now play a very important role on the modern battlefield, no less then in the past.

To conclude, to make for example a modern armored warfare game and NOT model this capability would frankly be a blunder of significant proportions. The primary threat to modern AFVs in a non conventional battlefield is precisely the field expedient AT weapon.

ORIGINAL: Arimus

I question wether enough tanks were destroyed by such means in the Battle of the Bulge to make it worth trying to model in this game.

[Panther Paul]

It would of course be possible to add them in, create a new weapon, like the Panzerfaust. Short range, one shot.

With the new estab editor you could try it out.

[Arimus]

I think the type of close combat you are talking about was much more prevelant on the Eastern Front than on the western front. For 2 years neither the German or Russian infantry had organic AT weapons and had no choice but to close assault to defend themselves against tanks. In the west, squad AT weapons were much more common. Why try and slap sticks of C4 to a tank with grease when you can fire a bazooka from MUCH farther away!
Both sides in the east feared the AT magnetic mine. It lead the Germans to employ zimmerit and the 90mm turret mortor. However, the Russians never deployed a squad AT weapon other than obsolete AT rifles and so had no choice but to try and close assault German tanks.
 
Research on the battle of the bulge may not have uncovered many instances of infantry assaulting tanks with unconventional devices.
 
As far as modern day threats, in the first gulf war, I think we lost more tanks to motor pool accidents than we did to non conventional AT weapons. They are more likely to disable rather than to destroy.
Not sure about the second war or the current insurgency. Tanks are too expensive to operate to put on patrol duty so I can't imagine they see much action.

[Sheytan]

Bravo! Anything to model the last line of defense so to speak. Further this may mitigate the situations in which you have folks commenting on AFVs running around in game in close proximity to infantry units and are invulerable. Or apparently this appears to be the case, when said infantry unit exausts its supply of organic AT.

Thanks for seriously considering this!

ORIGINAL: Panther Paul

It would of course be possible to add them in, create a new weapon, like the Panzerfaust. Short range, one shot.

With the new estab editor you could try it out.

[Sheytan]

Actually no. The germans made quite a name for themselves with anti tank operations in the hedgerows of Normandy. Close assault with infantry borne AT weapons there were quit the detriment to the allies because the terrain lent itself to this type of tank hunting.

Frankly in any terrain that had limited fields of view, IE, urban, dense forrest, hedgerow etc, all of these were ideal tank killing terrain as this favored the infantry in many ways. So no I dont believe this was a eastern front specific event. The remarkable difference is the SCALE. The scale at the eastern front meant all scales of measure elsewhere are dwarfed by proportion. And as you stated the prolific use of field expedient weapons on the eastern front was in itself remarkable. Why? Because typically to the average rifleman the molotov cocktail was it...in the west, say the US army at the time this may not have been a nessessity based on the wealth of equpitment comparable to the Red Army for example, but dont kid yourself. Hell dont rely on me [;)] read the accounts of the battle that offer detailed AAR level reporting and I can assure you, you will find unconventional weapons used by every unit.

ORIGINAL: Arimus

I think the type of close combat you are talking about was much more prevelant on the Eastern Front than on the western front. For 2 years neither the German or Russian infantry had organic AT weapons and had no choice but to close assault to defend themselves against tanks. In the west, squad AT weapons were much more common. Why try and slap sticks of C4 to a tank with grease when you can fire a bazooka from MUCH farther away!
Both sides in the east feared the AT magnetic mine. It lead the Germans to employ zimmerit and the 90mm turret mortor. However, the Russians never deployed a squad AT weapon other than obsolete AT rifles and so had no choice but to try and close assault German tanks.

Research on the battle of the bulge may not have uncovered many instances of infantry assaulting tanks with unconventional devices.

As far as modern day threats, in the first gulf war, I think we lost more tanks to motor pool accidents than we did to non conventional AT weapons. They are more likely to disable rather than to destroy.
Not sure about the second war or the current insurgency. Tanks are too expensive to operate to put on patrol duty so I can't imagine they see much action.

[NewBobolix]

my two cents...yesterday night I was reading a Normandy book...US parà from the 101° were holding Carentan when some german tanks (alone without infantry) tried to counterattack in the bocage...
a good sergent took a man with a bazooka trying to stop the tanks knowing that it was very important to hold that position...
the sergent waited until the first tank of the line was quite close and shooted:
the first shot hit the turret and bounce away; at that point the other soldier would run away and retire but the "brave" sergent held him there...the tank has to climb over the bocage to advance and will have the unarmored part exposed to the bazooka so the sergent decide to have a coin flip situation: try a second shot to destroy the tank or die
the second shot hit the unarmored part of the tank while he was climbing the bocage and the tank is destroyed...the other 4 tanks decided to stop and retreat as they did not know how many bazookas were out there...

what if a platoon of germans were together with the tanks ?

take your conclusions...

[CptWaspLuca]

Thank you for all the excellent contributions; I really hope that Panther Gamers will in the future improve this aspect of the simulation. I'm re-reading my accounts on the Ardennes and mechanical failures and armors stuck in mud are frequently cited. The commander of the 12 SS Panzer Div is criticized for the suicidal commitment of his precious tanks in Krinkelt-Rocherat without infantry, which led to the "panzer graveyard".

I think that the engine has the means to fully model those aspects of warfare. IMHO the infantry should be given more close combat power against tanks WHEN IN RESTRICTED/HURBAN TERRAIN; and isolated tanks without infantry support should be given a big armor malus, to model the big vulnerability of the weak spots.

Questioning about the effective usage of a specific weapon in this theater is not much relevant, I think, because Germans and Americans in the Ardennes had a very big quantity of rocket AT weapons. It was fully acceptable to use 15 bazooka rounds for a tank, if it was needed.

The mechanical breakdown feature is more specific to this theater, but in the Ardennes it was VERY relevant.

And my impression is that in wet/muddy conditions BftB overrates (and greatly) the off-road capabilities of vehicles. I was reading yesterday about the defense of St Vith: Clarke was blocked in his retreat by mud, and relief by 82 was uncertain. He was ready to abandon the vehicles to save his men. Then the first really freezing night made the soil finally hard as stone, and they were safe.

Keep up the good work, Panther Games!

[ZBrisk]

I had that problem in Crete as well. The Matilda in Iraklion had no fuel and I had an infantry co right on it, but they couldn't do anything to it.

Airstrikes did nothing either. From what I gather in flight sims, it's reasonable to expect on average a couple stuka strikes (500 kg each) to take out a medium/heavy tank. Given that air strikes are 1 tonne of bombs then you'd think a couple should at least kill one tank...

Even the Pak38s, which should penetrate up to 4 inches of armor, couldn't deal with that ~70 mm. I take it impact angles are assumed to be 30 degrees?

[Capt Cliff]

I read of an improvised AT attack by a US tank (Sherman most likely) against a German Tiger, they guy used a white phosphorus round. It did nothing to the Tiger but the Tiger crew thought they were on fire and abandoned the Tiger. [:D] American ingenuity!

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

...the Tiger crew thought they were on fire and abandoned the Tiger. [:D] American ingenuity!

I think this is a key point that the game might have missed. Crew morale and experience will influence their assessment of the situation and whether or not they bail out. Another factor is the treatment they expect from the enemy. So, a German tank crew might be more willing to surrender to the Americans than to the Soviets.

I've read of Soviet crews refusing to leave their tank even when immobilised and unable to fire - the Germans used crowbars to open the hatches. I also read an account of German 20mm flak guns causing Soviet tank crews to surrender because the terrific noise of the rounds on the hull was too much to bear. No actual damage was done to their T34s - they just could stand it any longer.

Armour thickness + morale + experience + theatre of operations + ammo + damage level/mobility are the factors influencing chance to bail. It's a bailed out tank that loses its combat value just as much as a knocked out one, regardless of penetration and damage modelling... Many crews just bail and retreat

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: ZBrisk

I had that problem in Crete as well. The Matilda in Iraklion had no fuel and I had an infantry co right on it, but they couldn't do anything to it.

Airstrikes did nothing either. From what I gather in flight sims, it's reasonable to expect on average a couple stuka strikes (500 kg each) to take out a medium/heavy tank. Given that air strikes are 1 tonne of bombs then you'd think a couple should at least kill one tank...

Even the Pak38s, which should penetrate up to 4 inches of armor, couldn't deal with that ~70 mm. I take it impact angles are assumed to be 30 degrees?

Yes, it's the same that happened to me. About air strikes: yes, they were ineffective too in COTA, in BftB I haven't tested it yet.

[OlegHasky]

Airstrikes did nothing either. From what I gather in flight sims, it's reasonable to expect on average a couple stuka strikes (500 kg each) to take out a medium/heavy tank. Given that air strikes are 1 tonne of bombs then you'd think a couple should at least kill one tank...

Expectations are ofcourse correct, and justified here. All threats from above were treated very seriously by any tank crews - and had a potential higher prior of caution than anything else when appeared. Recognizing enemy aircraft activity (especially on the enemy terrain) often changed the whole psychological approach to the action.
Stuka fan of tank busting capabilities was wiiiide.. from those 0,5 t right to heavy gun pods. Hull plates was just a very tasty piece for those above.

I often take it on detail.. And I had an example just today.. when a group of German Pz II F´s and Pz III´s had penetrated my line and were just dancing pogo there.. RAF ground attack strike hit them.. And I swer I saw at least two of them burning after this.. I take -1 from 3 to the correction from intel raport. So I gues the impact is reflected in the series.
You just have to forgive your pilots this miss there on the Crete..[;)]

[Arimus]

I would be willing to bet that for every heroic act of a soldier close assaulting and destroying or disabling a tank, there are a hundred acts where a soldier said "screw that" and stayed in his foxhole.
Of course, not many historians would write about that, right?

[tyrspawn]

Just to comment on the effectiveness of artillery against armor.

Historically artillery is used to BUTTON the vehicle, forcing everyone to close all hatches, which severely limits combat effectiveness. Artillery can also "track" vehicles (immobilizing them), as well as destroy periscopes, external ammo and fuel supplies and disable other subsystems. Of course, a lucky hit could kill a tank.

In modern times arty can be used with a laser designator to directly target both moving and stationary targets.

[James Sterrett]

ORIGINAL: ZBrisk
Airstrikes did nothing either. From what I gather in flight sims, it's reasonable to expect on average a couple stuka strikes (500 kg each) to take out a medium/heavy tank. Given that air strikes are 1 tonne of bombs then you'd think a couple should at least kill one tank...

The flight sims, even the really good ones such as IL-2, greatly overstate the effectiveness of WW2 CAS (Close air Support).

The most easily accessible study of that is Ian Gooderson's Air Power at the Battlefront (Amazon link). Gooderson delved into US and British operations research examinations of the effectiveness of CAS; they found it far less effective than it claimed to be.

This matches with WW@ Soviet research & testing I've read through, which concluded that the best way for CAS to hurt tanks was to attack their logistics trucks.

It's extremely hard to hit a tank with WW2 era sights and bombs or cannon, and even if you get a hit it takes a big cannon or bomb to do much of note.

That said... CAS may not have destroyed many tanks, but it created immense disruption, confusion, and delay.

Side note: if you are interested in CAS procedures, look at chapter 5 of JP 3-09.3.

[OlegHasky]

they found it far less effective than it claimed to be

Maybe.. compearing to U.S always high ambitions.
I have to disagree with the overall view that the effectivness was low.

Yes -The Soviet propaganda might had put little to much of colour on Il´s.
Yes -Lots can argue about Stuka tank-bust effectivenes (including me)
And Yes -the Allies expected just too much from the Typhoons, and Hurricanes D´s

but here are some stats:

SOVIET UNION
Top Tank Killers
NAME TANKS

Jefimov, Alexandr Nikolajeviè 126
Stìpanjan, Nelson Georgijeviè 80
Kozlovskij, Vasilij Ivanoviè 68
Chalzov, Viktor Stìpanoviè 60
Gamzin, Vladimír Vasiljeviè 53
Kirtok, Nikolaj Naumoviè 38
Polujanov, Grigorij Pavloviè 38
Èeèelašvili, Otari Grigorjeviè 34
Popov, Nikolaj Isaakoviè 32
Rossochin, Boris Gavriloviè 28
Nosov, Alexandr Andrejeviè 27
Bezbokov, Vladimir Michailoviè 26
Blinov, Pavel Fjodoroviè 24
Lackov, Nikolaj Sergejeviè 24
Stìpanov, Nikolaj Nikotoviè 24
Latypov, Kuddus Kanifoviè 22
Kabanov, Vladimír Jegoroviè 19
Poljakov, Pavel Jakovleviè 18
Sidorin, Vasilij Nikolajeviè 18
Danilov, Grigorij Semjonoviè 16
Železnjakov, Petr Filippoviè 16
Kizjun, Petr Kondratjeviè 15
Šamšurin, Vasilij Grigorjeviè
Nikolajev, Nikolaj Ivanoviè 13
Rjabov, Konstantin Andrejeviè 13
Rjabov, Sergej Ivanoviè 12
Abazovskij, Konstantin Antonoviè 11
Razin, Ivan Petroviè 11
Išankulov, Abducattar 10
Ivanov, Konstantin Vasiljeviè 10
Kizima, Andrej Ivanoviè 10
Zacharov, Viktor Nikolajeviè 10
Žestkov, Aleksandr Ivanoviè 10


GERMANY
Top Tank Killers
Name Tanks

Oberst Hans-Ulrich Rudel 519+
Ofw. Anton Hübsch 120+
Hptm. Gerhard Stüdemann 117
Ofw. Alois Wosnitza 104
Lt. Jacob Jenster 100+
Hptm. Hendrik Stahl 100+
Lt. Anton Korol 99
Oblt. Wilhelm Joswig 88
Oblt. Max Diepold 87
Lt. Wilhelm Noller 86
Ofw. Hans Ludwig 85
Ofw. Heinz Edhofer 84
Ofw. Siegfried Fischer 80
Maj. Theodor Nordmann 80
Lt. Kurt Plenzat 80
Hptm. Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer 80~
Hptm. Kurt Lau 80~
Oblt. Hans-Joachim Jäschke 78
Oblt. Helmut Hannemann 77
Hptm. Hubert Pölz 76
Oblt. Wilhelm Bromen 76
Oblt. Rainer Nossek 73+
Oblt. Gustav Schubert 70+
Fw. Otto Ritz 70~
Hptm. Hans-Hermann Steinkamp 70~

Those numbers are pretty high.. And those are "the tops" ,excluding grather numbers of those who had busted 3-4-6 and than.. died.

It's extremely hard to hit a tank with WW2 era sights and bombs or cannon.

I think you unappreciate those ww2 pilots abbilities. (specialy in the late war, after gaining expierience)
Russians developed effective tactic called "Circle of Death" wich relyed on attacking the rear of the tank.

..and even if you get a hit it takes a big cannon or bomb to do much of note

Those heavy gunpods are well enough for most hull, and rear armours. And German planes had them pretty stabile,
Rockets (lunched from close range approach) were also deadly
It was really hard to hit the tank with a bomb though.

Overally, the threat from the air was a major issue for any tank commander.