IS A TANK IS A TANK IS A TANK?

[spence]

I've never tried the Manchuria '45 scenario. Given the focus of game on air/naval operations and the enormity of the theater situations wherein opposing tank formations come into contact with one another are undoubtably pretty rare.
I had something of a tank battle in UV though when a regiment of Grants engaged some of those tinfoil tankettes the Japanese had (though in reality it was in pretty crumby terrain (tankwise) and involved infantry on both sides as well. Can't say as I noticed any special benefit accruing to the Grants or the Allies although it is difficult to envision any role for the tankettes as other than a self-propelled coffin for the crews.
Has anyone experimented with a pure tank battle in the game. An IJA tank regiment ought to come off a definite second-best in a fight with a Soviet Brigade of T-34s since IRL the Japanese had to resort to human-bombs just to take out a Sherman.
Just wondering if the land combat model has been abstracted to the point where differences in armor, speed and gun power matter not at all.

[Bradley7735]

I've noticed that tank units are pretty powerful. A tank brigade (which has less assault value) is better than an infantry brigade. I have seen tank brigades survive a deliberate attack from a full Japanese division when an infantry brigade would get retreated. And, they almost always take significantly less disablements when in combat. That means that they can stay in the fight for much longer than their equivalent in infantry. You can't assault with them alone, as they can't take down forts. But, when you have them in your army, they do make a difference.

[spence]

Appreciate your response but it really doesn't address the question(s).

1) Has anybody experimented with tank unit vs tank unit combat?

2) Is the land combat model so abstracted that differences in armor, speed, and gun power between different tanks do not matter?

[Feinder]

As I recall, tanks (as devices) -are- rated for armor in the database. I could check when I get home, but essentially, a tank is a just a "gun" with an armor rating. Mobility and penetration at range would not be considered in my understanding of the ground combat model. I suppose it -could- reflect damaged tanks (disablement) for non-penetrating hits; and destroy tanks for penetrating hits (where penetration > armor) of the given tank (device). But I'd have to test it to see how it works.

But now that you've asked, I'm curious. I've got PBEM turn to do (* scowls at LtFightr *). But I'll see about setting up a test some time this week. Again, ground compat is such a crap-shoot tho, I'm really couldn't begin to give you a hypothesis of what we'll see.

-F-

[tsimmonds]

I believe that a squad's weapons will have two distinct ratings for fire combat: vs soft targets, and vs armored targets. If the target unit has an armor value, the firing unit uses the anti-armor rating. Tanks absolutely chew up infantry. AT guns are hard on tanks. Tanks should be more or less effective vs tanks, depending on the firing tank's weapon and the target tank's armor. But this is only during the offensive and defensive fire segments. For the assault segment, there is only one assault value. What tanks are really good for is disabling or killing enemy squads (especially infantry) during the fire segments, so that they don't get to participate in assault.

[waynec]

a tank is a tank...

got a calendar for christmas called TANKS. on the front was an M1A2 and the back showed the pictures for each month. my wife looked at the front, flipped it over tokk 5 seconds looking at the back and said "These aren't all tanks."
which, of course they weren't. there was an M109A6 Palladin SPA, a USMC LAV, a Bradley. i always get a chuckle telling this story since most news readers, anchors (redundant i know), reporters and editors don't know the difference.

not sure if she could tell the difference between an M60A1 and an M60A3 but she can recognize an M60A2 (which i had in 1976, 3-33AR, germany).

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: spence

I've never tried the Manchuria '45 scenario. Given the focus of game on air/naval operations and the enormity of the theater situations wherein opposing tank formations come into contact with one another are undoubtably pretty rare.
I had something of a tank battle in UV though when a regiment of Grants engaged some of those tinfoil tankettes the Japanese had (though in reality it was in pretty crumby terrain (tankwise) and involved infantry on both sides as well. Can't say as I noticed any special benefit accruing to the Grants or the Allies although it is difficult to envision any role for the tankettes as other than a self-propelled coffin for the crews.
Has anyone experimented with a pure tank battle in the game. An IJA tank regiment ought to come off a definite second-best in a fight with a Soviet Brigade of T-34s since IRL the Japanese had to resort to human-bombs just to take out a Sherman.
Just wondering if the land combat model has been abstracted to the point where differences in armor, speed and gun power matter not at all.

A Japanese tank compared to an American tank the way a Sherman tank compared to a Tiger - it was dead meat. If A Sherman tank was considered far superior to a Japanese tank that really can't say much for Japanese armor.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: dereck

A Japanese tank compared to an American tank the way a Sherman tank compared to a Tiger - it was dead meat. If A Sherman tank was considered far superior to a Japanese tank that really can't say much for Japanese armor.

Watch out. There's a guy who reads these forums that swears that the Sherman is superior to the Tiger. (insert smiley here for ROTFLMAO). [:D]

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: dereck

A Japanese tank compared to an American tank the way a Sherman tank compared to a Tiger - it was dead meat. If A Sherman tank was considered far superior to a Japanese tank that really can't say much for Japanese armor.

Watch out. There's a guy who reads these forums that swears that the Sherman is superior to the Tiger. (insert smiley here for ROTFLMAO). [:D]

You must be misunderstanding him ... he must be referring to the Sherman's superior Bronson Lighter characteristics.[:D]

[Terminus]

Bronson Lighter? Sorry dereck, but that's hysterically funny!!!

[Speedysteve]

LOL[:D]

Mdiehl oh calling mdiehl [;)]

[Terminus]

He meant Ronson lighter, of course, but it's still very phunny...

[el cid again]

The situation is more complicated than you represent. Gen Yamashita went to Europe and observed the fighting there, and proposed a German like reorganization of the IJA. He had problems with Tojo, and spent much of the war "sidelined" in Manchukuo, but he did manage to get some "tank groups" (usually and somewhat wrongly translated tank divisions) formed. These had a rather good balance of tank and infantry battalions - 3 of each - and some of the infantry was mech - the rest motorized. They also had some good guns - but not very many of them - the mixed battalion of artillery had one battery of fine 150mm and two of 105 mm - which to be sure were better than the norm of the IJA. There also was a respectable contingent of engineers, an AAA unit, and a proper support train. [Japanese tank formations actually had spare tanks, and a good deal of organic support - more than any other army - partly because they were so out of sync with the rest of the army they had to be nearly self sufficient.]

Another thing not well understood - and not entirely represented in WITP - is that there were Japanese tanks later than the Type 98 (meaning 1938). WITP does let you have up to Type 2 (meaning entered service in 1942) - and you need to tack a year on to Japanese official dates to get practical initial operating dates. By 1945 there were two tank groups in Manchukuo, and some very fine motorized brigades. But the army - once the strongest element of the IJA - was pretty much gutted to support other theaters. And the officers who wanted really radical changes - these included a Kwangtung Army Commander - were generally sacked - or at least sidelined - so the reforms were never properly implemented. You need more than gear and organization - you need leadership to make tanks go.

The only tank group we ever fought was in Luzon - and it was a dismal affair. It still had ancient Type 89 tanks (1929), and it mainly had the hopelessly obsolete Type 98 (once a fine tank by the way). It was unable to get into effective range and it essentially served as a targeting exercise. The Japanese didn't run though. This is quite different from the other tank groups which had newer tanks. For a really interesting fight try the Third Group on the Kanto Plain in defense of Tokyo - IF you make a provision for the tanks it had.

Japanese tank units were either more or less big battalions or independent companies. Some were part of brigades - and there is a bewildering array of organizations. But mainly they had two kinds of tanks - what they call heavy and light. If you think of the tankette as an armored car and the "medium tank" as a light tank, they were not bad. Both were based on British and French ideas and models, and of course we don't laugh at Bren carriers. The Japanese tankettes were really ammo carriers that happened to have a MG - or 20mm gun - mostly - some didn't. [They all could tow a little tracked trailer with ammo for the troops, and many had a rear compartment to carry ammo in.] They also served as armored observation posts for spotters and recon troops. In the tank formations, the light tanks (or tanketts or armored cars) were basically recon troops. The formation typically had one or two companies of light, two or three companies of mediums, and a train company with a number of spares, as well as a HQ with tanks of its own. The battalions often had more than 60 tanks, and unlike the Germans, the Japanese tried to keep the number of tanks fairly high. This they achieved by assigning as many as 84 to the formation.

The light formations are really quite different. The companies are pure - all one vehicle - only used for infantry support - and sometimes manned by infantry. [During the war the infantry divisions with recon units - motorized formations vice cavalry recon units - upgraded their tankettes to light tanks. The tankettes were not retired, but were given to one of the division's regiments!] It is surprising but often little packets of tanks mattered. There are cases where as few as two light tanks - both American and Japanese - were significant in a major battle.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

He meant Ronson lighter, of course, but it's still very phunny...

Hey I don't smoke and never have so a lighter is a lighter to me [8|]

Regardless (Ronson/Bronson), you do know what I was referring to?

[rtrapasso]

Regardless (Ronson/Bronson), you do know what I was referring to?

Are you speaking of the ability of both the Sherman and the (B)Ronson to produce flames (the Sherman's involuntarily, the (B)Ronsons voluntarily)?

[Dereck]

Yep - both extremely dependable to light up every time.

[spence]

Speaking of RONSON'S I'm pretty sure that IJN aircrew in G3s and G4s referred lovingly to their aircraft as RONSONS.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: Terminus

He meant Ronson lighter, of course, but it's still very phunny...

Hey I don't smoke and never have so a lighter is a lighter to me [8|]

Regardless (Ronson/Bronson), you do know what I was referring to?

Heh, reminds me of the Simpson's episode where they go to Bronson Missouri instead of Branson Missouri. Everyone looked and sounded like Charles Bronson! [:D]

[Terminus]

"Ma, can I have a cookie?"

"No dice!"

"This ain't over..."

[:D][:D][:D]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: dereck

A Japanese tank compared to an American tank the way a Sherman tank compared to a Tiger - it was dead meat. If A Sherman tank was considered far superior to a Japanese tank that really can't say much for Japanese armor.

Watch out. There's a guy who reads these forums that swears that the Sherman is superior to the Tiger. (insert smiley here for ROTFLMAO). [:D]

Well, the run of the mill Medium M4A1(or 2,or 3,or 4 ) with a 75mm M3 gun - is no good bet one on one against a PZKW V, or VI (any mark).

But then 40,000 'Shermans' DID beat the Whermacht. When the war was over - we still had most our Shermans...the Germans didn't have but a tiny fraction of their panzers (and they weren't all KO'ed by the Air Force and the Russians).

Just to pour gasoline on the fire....

B