Keep the infantry strong vs tanks ...

[krull]

HEHEh sounds about right orc4hire. I personaly tried stay away from large tempting targets my self.
better a Sniper in the bush than A tank In the field specialy after 1967 to many rocket throwing junk cured my days of sittign on top of a M-60 to use for elevation

[Captn_Jack]

Originally posted by krull:
I have a ? what ever made ya think theres a safe zone around a tank? you ever seen one spin in a circle. or his buddy tank spray him with MG fire granted they maynot fire but I have seen in real combat other tanks spray em with Mg's to clear of some charlie's. And ya know i dont ever rember them guys complainng about friendly fire

Here's a quote from current US Army Field Manual:

b. An armored vehicle without close protection (dismounted infantry) in woods, MOUT, or other restrictive terrain is vulnerable to close attack. This type of attack is most likely to originate from well-armed infantry-type teams organized into armor-killer teams. (Noninfantry units may also be required to perform this mission.) Skilled firers from these teams should engage the suspension or engine compartment of vehicles that have applique or reactive armor. When an armored vehicle is buttoned up--all hatches are closed and personnel are inside the vehicle--the crew cannot see well enough to protect itself from close attacks or attacks from the flanks or rear. The personnel inside cannot see anything within 10 meters of the vehicle, and they cannot shoot at anything (using their main guns) within 20 meters. The white area in Figure 6-3 shows the most favorable direction of attack when the turret is facing to the front; the gray area shows the vehicle's principal direction of fire and observation when the turret is facing to the front.

Here's a link to a great site with all the Field Manuals concerning different weapon systems and tactics. There's even one on Serwage...just in case you want to find out how to handle a little "BS"...
http://155.217.58.58/atdls.htm

CJ

[krull]

Well capt jack ya got me there not read many ARMY manuals. I do distinclty rember several old M 48 and M 60 type tankies In marines In the LAND of Milk and honey and minefields and stakes etc etc. Strappign on some nice claymores just for such occasions. Thats the nice thing about games those manuals actualy work for real instead of sitting in some butterbars bags yes

[orc4hire]

krull,

Well, you're here talking about it, so it must've worked for you... :}

You're right, of course; just because you're in a tank's dead zone and _it_ can't hurt you doesn't mean some bright boy won't get the idea of hosing the thing down, and whether it's ma deuce or a russian .51 doesn't make much difference to you, no? Like they say, "Friendly fire isn't."

[orc4hire]

You know, that's a point too, Krull. Everyone's spending so much time talking about how clever and determined the infantry are, just dying for some helpless tank to come within arms' reach so they can slather it down with all those backpacks of high explosive they've been dragging around for just such a contingency, and how the tank crews are huddled inside their steel coffins, drizzling down their legs at the thought that some infantry might show up, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to many people that the tank crewmen might be clever, determined improvisers too.

[Igor]

They might be; but fighting an enemy you can't see while buttoned up can still be tricky. Sure, in an unbottoned vehicle the commander can stick his head up and see all those naughty infantry. On the other hand, the commander can get his head blown off in reality; SP kind of overlooks that possibility...

In early WW II there were various short range (contact) weapons available to the infantry; demolition charges made out of seven stick grenade heads, magnetic mines, sticky bombs, and etc. Troops with these weapons should be feared by tanks in close terrain; countless tank badges were earned with them. Of course, a lot of those honors were posthumous...

Troops without that kind of equipment, though, should have a very slender chance of hurting armor. Moreover, the infantry should be impotent against armor at range until HEAT weapons are introduced.

The point of all this? IMHO, heavy infantry should be left able to crucify unescorted tanks which wander into their hex. Otherwise, the regular infantry should be all but useless.

[orc4hire]

Igor,

Well, sure, once the tank is buttoned up its options are limited... that's why you do your improvising beforehand. If your tank is vulnerable to molotov cocktails landing on the rear deck and spilling burning gasoline down into the engine, mount some wire mesh or camouflage webbing or something back there so the bottles _bounce_ instead of shattering. Those track links you see stuck all over Shermans? Those were more to protect against HEAT warheads, like panzerfaust rounds, than high velocity AP. Some tanks mounted extra machine guns, to keep from getting pinned down in the first place. One unit equipped their Shermans with 60 lb. aircraft rockets, and there was something called an Anti-personal Tank Projector... I'm not sure of the details, but it had 4 hull mounted tubes that I'm pretty sure didn't shower close-in infantry with rose petals.... In Vietnam US forces put chain link fence up in front of vehicles in defensive positions to detonate RPGs. And I seem to recall a TC telling me once about a bag of grenades he kept handy to greet callers with.... And these are just a few things off the top of my head; I'm sure if I were out at the sharp end, and so strongly motivated, I could come up with more.

But, on the whole, I agree; I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that infantry without specialized anti-tank weapons should have a very tough time doing anything to hostile armor....

[Captn_Jack]

Originally posted by krull:
Well capt jack ya got me there not read many ARMY manuals. I do distinclty rember several old M 48 and M 60 type tankies In marines In the LAND of Milk and honey and minefields and stakes etc etc. Strappign on some nice claymores just for such occasions. Thats the nice thing about games those manuals actualy work for real instead of sitting in some butterbars bags yes

Well, that explaines it Krull. When the M60's and M48's rolled up, poor ol Charlie was so damn scared, he jumped right out of his cozy little tunnel and onto the tank! As a matter of fact, he was so scared, they had to use a claymore to pry his scrawny little fingers off the hulking beast!

My point is crewmen with pistols should not be able to take a tank, infantry, if equiped, should. They have done it for ages and will continue to do so.

I think the game models this aspect better than some armor vs armor duels anyway. I've seen King Tigers take suppressing fire from mortars, mg's and 13 hits of AP and APCR from 76mm guns in the game and not even slow down. All this in one game turn. So tell me how "real' is this??

CJ

[RobertMc]

Where SPWAW falls down currently IMHO is the fact that it doesn't require a MASSIVE gut check for troops to attack tanks.
I have no problem with soldiers blowing up tanks with the proper equipment or even with improvised equipment. But the assaults with improvised equipment ought to require a big old test of massive sized balls to even get the guys up and trying.
If they pass this and succeed, God love 'em!!!

Also: I think the next patch is going to take care of this.
But guys, also consider that we know a whole lot more today about the weaknesses of tanks than the soldiers did, especially in the early years of the war. They had to learn the hard way, for sure.
One neat thing about the CC series was when you ordered soldiers to attack a tank without the proper weapons, you got "We can't hurt that, sir!!"
In other words, "YOU go, dumba##!!!"

[Captn_Jack]

Originally posted by RobertMc:
Where SPWAW falls down currently IMHO is the fact that it doesn't require a MASSIVE gut check for troops to attack tanks.
I have no problem with soldiers blowing up tanks with the proper equipment or even with improvised equipment. But the assaults with improvised equipment ought to require a big old test of massive sized balls to even get the guys up and trying.
If they pass this and succeed, God love 'em!!!

I'm not sure that the game doesn't already do this. I have tried to have infantry units assault a target, only to see no attack take place but a rise of 25 points occurs to the suppression of the unit that was ordered to attack. This seems to happen more to troops who have rallied back than "fresh" ones. Or another observation I have noticed, is that the target will fire before my unit carries out its assault. So those "checks" may already be programed in.

CJ

[Larry Holt]

I think we need to make a distinction between the technical ability of dismounted troops to kill tanks with improvised means and the training and organization of armies to actually do so.

According to an old US manual on German defense against Russian breakthrough attacks that I have, on the eastern front the German infantry's primary tank killing means was infantry with improvised means. The Germans pulled tanks back from infantry units to form reserves and there was a lack of AT guns so they were used in depth, instead of along the front. Thus the German infantry had to build trenches especially for moving unseen up to Soviet tanks attacking their positions. The Germans organized and trained special teams to use improvised AT killing means.

This shows that tanks were really vulnerable to infantry improvised means. But it does not imply that ALL infantry of ALL nations at ALL times should be able to routinely use improvised means successfully.

The manual also mentions that experience was a real confidence builder. Thus the morale/experience check should be a major deciding factor in the success of the attack.


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

[Paul Vebber]

4.6 makes the "pre-assualt morale check" much tougher to pass...

[krull]

Yall got a point there i never did understand crews and lone snipers killing tanks. I for one As a Sniper during 1960 to 1991( last part as a instructor) WOULDNT leave my camoed spot to assault no tank Nor do i remeber crews carrying any thing besides pistols and some had M1 carbines or subs. That i agree with.

Thru Mortars will supress ya ever seen a 81 mm Hit a tank makes a load Boom and if Ya dont have on side skirts POOF usualy no track or Worst I ever saw was landed on gun barrel A 82 mm No main gun after that just MGs. SO yes arty and mortars are supressive even if dont do much damage it takes alot to keep going thru that ind of fire cause ya dont know what it is? Is it a RPG hitting ya and artillary shell another tank?

[Major_Johnson]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
4.6 makes the "pre-assualt morale check" much tougher to pass...

I do hope that goes for the AI too!! Fairs fair now.



------------------
MJ
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.

[JTGEN]

It's good point about those national characteristics. It is inpossible to have Finnish battless with realistic amounts of AT-guns in the early war. That would be like two 45mm AT's for the big map. Rest of the tank killing would have to be made by infartry, but with current settings it would be too messy or impossible.

Here is a suggestion: If a tank tumbles into a couple of men with no heavy weapons. They are inside the "blind" zone. They place a biggish stone on the tracks and it will brake them when entering the wheel at the end of the tracks that delivers the movement. So the tank is immobilized, but not destroyed. This is a far out example so do not crusify me please. In the Finnish movie Winter War one of the guys place a piece of wood on the tracks that jams the transmission and then it is burned with a molotow coctail.

One problem here is that in the game the distance where the tanks can see the infartry and thus shoot at them is often not at place. Somebody said than when assaulting from neighbouring hex the men must advance 50m to get to the tank. But in a thick forest with bushes the tank can not see much of anything and the infartry is allready in the blind zone before the tank can see them and therefore the tank should never go unescorted to forest. But the game does not make this possible as the tanks can see the infartry at 50m in the forest. It is like they would be standing there wawing their hands to the tank. Especially if the infartry is dug in and the tank tumbles into their position without escort, it should be dead. The picture is wholy different in the open where it would be suicide to attack a tank with say molotow for example.

Same is with the speed of the tank. In the game they can go 20mph in to the forest. In the real life I do not think so. They would probably brake the transmission. Have you by the way noticed that when infartry dismounts from say m3 for example the carrier and the infartry can be doing 30mph. Those sure are mobile soldiers and it effects the hit chances. Bug? Sure but can not get everything.

Also I have not seen big differences in the accuracy of Bazookas against fast moving and ststionary tanks from the distance of 3 hexes. There should be a huge difference. In U to R my bazooka teams with 90 experience and no suppression had 1/3 chance of hitting a stationary tank from 2 hexes or even 1 hex distance. Far too low chance. Also the tanks can always see where the shot came from and see the two men in the hex that is 50*50 size. No way this would be the case in real life. There are many other such things that reduce the reality factor in the game but it is still the best game I have ever played.

[USMCGrunt]

Originally posted by JTGEN:
Also the tanks can always see where the shot came from and see the two men in the hex that is 50*50 size. No way this would be the case in real life. There are many other such things that reduce the reality factor in the game but it is still the best game I have ever played.

JTGEN,

Spotting these units is not unrealistic at all. Having fired a number of antitank rocket weapons, I can say that the cloud of dust and debris these things raise is very noticeable. In the Marine Corps, the survival of a Dragon ATGM gunner after his initial shot against advancing armor was rated at about 11% for the first 20 seconds. (Not a very good rating at all.) You need to also take into condideration the positions these weapons were fired from. The M1 and M9 bazookas were usually fired from a sitting position, not prone. If you tried to fire one prone, expect some nice burns on your back and legs. Also, you have to have a reasonably clear area behind you. This leaves out the possibility of firing from inside a small building, and you better make sure that the rear exhaust is up over the edge of the foxhole you're sitting in.

Just a few things to think about.



------------------
USMCGrunt

-When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.

[JTGEN]

I do not think it is that easy. Comparing the use of dragon and short range weapons is not wery good. I do not know the dragon outside SP2 but think it is suppose to be used in open area. Also the mark left by it can be thus more easily spotted especially if fired from the front to the tank. And if there is more than one spotting unit. But that is not what I am talking about at all.

Using short range weapon to the rear of the tank were wisibility from the tank is limited and in terrain giving good cover shoul give the user of such weapon enough time to conseal himself before the tank can spot him. The user would probably not stand still in open ground unless he is a total moron and thus deserves to get shot.

Also if for example in entrenched position the tank has good chance of killing part of anti tank team even when they do not leave the trenches. But the time involved in turning the turret and aiming, the men should have had enough time to get away from the machineguns, or the trenches are not made wery well. At least the ones I digged in the army would have given me a shelter against such burst and also allowed me to change position without been seen from a tank 50m away.

One bug in the game is also that bullbub machineguns in the front of the tank can shoot backwards without the tank been turned.

[chaos45]

On this post I only have to say this. As long as an infantry squad has handgrenades, or molotovs it should be able to destroy a tank. If a squad only has machineguns and rifles then it shouldnt even have a chance. In the game unescorted tanks get destroyed, thats how I think it should be, and how it was historically. When in a city or woods what did tank commanders want, infantry as it should be. Armored units had motorized infantry for a reason, not just to joyride.

[orc4hire]

It's always entertaining to read here about the awesome anti-armor destructive power of the humble hand grenade, which so far exceeds that of any specially designed anti-tank weapon that armored crews quiver in terror at the thought of passing within a couple hundred yards of an infantryman unless they have infantry of their own clinging to the outside of the tank to protect its tender skin with their bodies....

2 points, chaos45. First. You think it is reasonable that infantry have enormous powers of destruction against any tank that passes within 50 yards of it (and a slightly more modest ability to cast their death rays out to 200 yards or so, with the issuing of RPGs to troops of all time periods), unless the tank has friendly infantry stuck to its hull. Some people agree with you. And others think that's silly.

I have to disagree with the sweeping grandeur of your statement that all infantry of all periods, nationalities, and services, should always be able to take out a tank if they have access to a fragmentation grenade or some gasoline. Some infantry, of some nationalities, particularly later in the period, specially trained and equipped, were very dangerous indeed. A lot of the infantry, particularly in the earlier part of the period were far, far more likely to flee in terror from the tanks than the tanks were to flee in terror from them.

[victorhauser]

The real problem, the real bottom line, is that nobody really knows for sure what a good baseline "percentage" is for infantry to destroy vehicles in combat. I believe that this is a trial-and-error process: step 1) choose an arbitrary baseline destruction percentage; step 2) playtest many close assaults against enemy vehicles; step 3) adjust the arbitrary baseline destruction percentage if the results don't "feel" right; step 4) repeat steps 2 and 3 until the results do "feel" right.

This is more art than science, guys. And there are as many opinions as to what the "arbitrary baseline destruction percentage" should be as there are players of the game. I do know that I'm reasonably satisfied with the close-assault results that I see in v4.5. I predict that if those results (and percentages) change drastically from v4.5 to v4.6(5.0??) then there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth (which will probably then need to be re-adjusted in v4.7(5.1??) and after).

Another issue is that if both the morale check is made more difficult AND the "arbitrary baseline destruction percentage" is reduced, then the combination of those two factors will DRASTICALLY degrade the ability of infantry to successfully assault enemy vehicles. And that worries me because I'm not terribly unhappy with the outcomes I've been experiencing in v4.5.

On the other hand, I am very much in favor of historical unit TO/Es. I believe that simply making infantry TO/Es historical (to the degree possible) will go farther towards making infantry assaults "feel" more "historically realistic" than to begin a painful and laborious trial-and-error process of tweaking the assault-morale-check and baseline-destruction percentages (a process that will never satisfy everybody and could take years to complete).