AA-machineguns on tanks and half-tracks

[Michael Wermelin]

At close range tanks and half-tracks usually fire all of their weapons. To take out a tank or destroy equipment on the tank you usually need at least a .50 machinegun. But the AA-machingeguns on tanks and half-tracks need to be operated by someone sticking their head out. Shouldn't it be easy to "destroy" these AA-weapons that needs operating from the outside? If I'm spraying a Sherman with a MG42, isn't it quite a chance for me to take out the gunner of the AA-machine gun? Specially in an assault?

[Paul Vebber]

All you have to do is button the tank and the AA gun will not fire. Actually hitting it is rather hard...

[Fredde]

Hitting the man in the hatch shouldn't be that difficult

[AmmoSgt]

Fredde when one human tries to shoot another human is is much harder than hitting a target half a humans size ..it is hard to get more than 4 men in a 12 man Squad to actually fire at all in combat. Crew Served weapons do better because there are more folks in one spot to actually help somebody pull the trigger...usually all elite forces mean is that half the squad will actually fire instead of a forth of a squad like in regular troops ... lotta reasons not to fire when somebody is shooting at ya ..
i have often thought that the best suppresion level for reg troops would be 15 and for elite would be 10 on a good day without anybody actually shooting at them as a better way of expresing troop quality than "true troop cost" but thats me

[Igor]

Granting all you said about troops not firing (and the unstated problem regarding getting troops to *aim* even if they do pull the trigger); it would be amusing to let snipers pick off crew members of unbuttoned armored vehicles. That kind of attack was, after all, what they did for a living...

[john g]

Originally posted by Igor:
Granting all you said about troops not firing (and the unstated problem regarding getting troops to *aim* even if they do pull the trigger); it would be amusing to let snipers pick off crew members of unbuttoned armored vehicles. That kind of attack was, after all, what they did for a living...

Back a couple of months ago I stirred up a storm of protest in the games war historical newsgroup when I derided the argument of one player of Combat Mission who stated his tanks would run unbuttoned and ignoring the enemy infantry unless they closed within 50 yds of his vehicles. When I pointed out that the British infantry were trained to hit a 24 in bull at 400 yds to qualify with the Enfield and a man sticking out of a turret was about that size, I told him he would be replacing quite a few tank commanders if he followed that policy.

When I play SPWaW I do indeed button tanks with rifle fire prior to initiating a close assault in the era before piat, bazooka, and panzerfaust come into play, it ups your chance to kill the tank enough to make it worthwile.

I never have noticed a crew casualty from the suppresive fire, and keep my snipers busy killing enemy troops outside of the range of their primary weapon, with that 15 hex range and enough experiance, the ground around a sniper is deadly.
thanks, John.

[Larry Holt]

Originally posted by john g:
Back a couple of months ago I stirred up a storm of protest in the games war historical newsgroup when I derided the argument of one player of Combat Mission who stated his tanks would run unbuttoned and ignoring the enemy infantry unless they closed within 50 yds of his vehicles. When I pointed out that the British infantry were trained to hit a 24 in bull at 400 yds to qualify with the Enfield and a man sticking out of a turret was about that size, I told him he would be replacing quite a few tank commanders if he followed that policy.
[snip]
thanks, John.

I remember reading that in the Israeli army tank commanders did stay exposed (they called it name tag defilade). They were able to command more effectively but also took more casualities.


------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[bravo.john]

I remember reading that in the Israeli army tank commanders did stay exposed (they called it name tag defilade). They were able to command more effectively but also took more casualities.

One of the Israeli battles had 5 Centurions attacking 40 Arab tanks along a road. By the time the Arabs retreated, half of them had been destroyed to no losses by the Israelies. Rather lucky, as the average Israeli tank commander lifespan was usually measured in mere minutes.

They judged that firing first with surprise gave a 5:1 advantage to the attacking force. Along with other advantages like exposed commanders with good visibility and rather level gun trajectories which allowed battle sighting out to nearly 1500m. While their poorly trained opponents were trying to work out firing solutions in a cramped and buttoned up turret made the Israelies rather difficult for poorly followed Soviet Standard Doctrine(tm) to deal with.

[AmmoSgt]

I have seen it mentioned before briefly but as a reminder tanks firing at targets over 6 hexes away must make a moral check to fire secondary weapons (to simulate multitasking in a busy turret) if you turn off the main gun your crew thanks you by reliably firing MG's at any target you wish

[Kluckenbill]

I commanded M60A1's back in the '70s. Their visibility when buttoned up was just awful. I had enough trouble keeping the damn thing on the road, much less knocking out T62's. From what I've seen of WW2 era tanks, they were at least as bad. If anything, I think that in SPWAW visibility may not be degraded enough when buttoned up.

I too generally plink at tanks to try to get them to button up before taking them under serious fire or close assault. Indirect Fire artillery will also (sometimes) get them to button up.

I've heard lots of anecdotal stories about the life expectancies of tank commanders in a close combat environment (cities, forests etc.) but I've not actually seen any statistics that I deem reliable.

------------------
Target, Cease Fire !