Infantry versus Armored Units

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

Post Reply
matt.buttsworth
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Weimar, Germany
Contact:

Infantry versus Armored Units

Post by matt.buttsworth »

In my advance towards Germany I have found that Russian infantry corps are very strong, and I have been converting them steadily as the mainstay of my advance breaking the defending German units.
By comparison, armored brigades and armored divisions seems very weak and unable to break German lines.
Isn't this unhistorical?
Shouldn't Russian tank armies be their strongest unit?

Matthew
User avatar
vlcz
Posts: 387
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:18 am
Location: Spain

RE: Infantry versus Armored Units

Post by vlcz »

"armored brigades and armored divisions"????

build CORPS, armored and mechanised CORPS

soviet tank divisions are simply crap, its strange even that you have any as they convert into brigades... maybe you are refering to corps when writing divisions?

brigades are simply too little a unit when you can only stack three units without size considerations


matt.buttsworth
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Weimar, Germany
Contact:

RE: Infantry versus Armored Units

Post by matt.buttsworth »

Sorry I wrote divisions instead of corps but are Soviet tank and mechanized corps stronger and better at breaking defence lines than infantry corps?
In my experience so far, the Soviet infantry corps are very strong.

Matthew
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Infantry versus Armored Units

Post by Klydon »

That is historical to a point. The tank corps was a exploitation unit that depended on the infantry corps to break the line and then the tank corps went through in a pursuit fashion. Part of it is what time frame of the game you are talking about. In 1942 and even into 1943, the tank corps ToE isn't that hot. It gets better as the war goes along and so its performance improves as well.

Mech corps were designed to advance and then hold a breach. Tank corps do not defend that hot on their own. The mech corps has much more staying power on defense.
randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Infantry versus Armored Units

Post by randallw »

There is also the consequence of the 25% penalty when tank/motorized/mech brigades are formed into the corps. Forming rifle corps together does not have such penalty.
gradenko2k
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:08 am

RE: Infantry versus Armored Units

Post by gradenko2k »

You're correct that Rifle Corps are great on the attack, but it's Tank Corps that have the movement points to exploit any gaps in the line created by your Rifles, and then Mechanized Corps to hold those deeper penetrations open. Even in the absence of encirclements or kessels, being able to drive your tanks through holes in the German defenses should allow you to advance faster than if you were just pushing them back one row of hexes at a time. At that rate, even Sir Douglas Haig might beat you to Berlin.
matt.buttsworth
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Weimar, Germany
Contact:

RE: Infantry versus Armored Units

Post by matt.buttsworth »

Sir Douglas Haig is way ahead of me.

:)
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”