Matrix Games Forums

Forget Shoot & Scoot if you want, still we need a Reverse order to just get tanks out of harm's way without turning their back to enemy, isn't it ? [:'(]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Forget Shoot & Scoot if you want, still we need a Reverse order to just get tanks out of harm's way without turning their back to enemy, isn't it ? [:'(]

The only problem is that you actually can't really reverse in a WW2 tank under combat conditions [:'(]. It is pretty much a gamey feature. But I'm sure, wether gamey or not it will be looked at [;)]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Forget Shoot & Scoot if you want, still we need a Reverse order to just get tanks out of harm's way without turning their back to enemy, isn't it ? [:'(]

Well, that's already in there as Withdraw, but if you meant having something like that in the Reaction phase, that's what we're looking at.

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Forget Shoot & Scoot if you want, still we need a Reverse order to just get tanks out of harm's way without turning their back to enemy, isn't it ? [:'(]

The only problem is that you actually can't really reverse in a WW2 tank under combat conditions [:'(]. It is pretty much a gamey feature. But I'm sure, wether gamey or not it will be looked at [;)]

This is incorrect. WWII tanks used reverse under combat conditions extensively. They used it in platoon movements and section movements as 'commands' and even in single vehicle tactics and reactions. The TC can give the driver sufficient relayed commands to reverse a vehicle backwards. Tanks with radio communications can relay information also.

The morale model for armor should take this into account and reversing (after non-penetrating hits/shocked) should occur also. In some c ases (T70 sees a Tiger), it should be automatic.

Again I suggest the German 2 tank section as being another way to abstract this. Giving a 2 tank section a withdrawl does not commit the whole platoon to this action. Its very realistic. It allows superior command and control to be modeled. I do like the platoon withdrawl command. I use it when attacking all the time. I send one vehicle forward. When it encounters trouble, I give the withdrawl command to get it back. The other platoon memebers get very short waypoints instead. Not perfect but it works. But it commits the whole platoon.

I would like to see an Ambush command. A specific enemy vehicle, or a designated location (point or 'marqueed area') can be assigned. A friendly platoon/section given this command must have at least one vehicle capable of having an LOS to that area. The other vehicles in the platoon/section will use a short move to take the area/target under fire. Once the enemy is destroyed, or the attacking unit has suffered casualties, the atttacking unit withdraws back to its origional position as an SOP. Units might have to be in Defend at least a turn to use this command. Units without radios might not be able to use this command, etc.

This command allows a short move forward and the unit will engage the enemy. It is effectivelly a shoot and scoot but not limited to a one shot engagement.

By the way..I see that Soviet Tanks can be bought in chunks up to 6 vehicles?  I like this abstraction as it models poor C&C.
 
But the cost is the same 'tank for tank' for 3 tank (T34/1942) as 6 tank (T34/1942)?  The larger unit should be 'cheaper' (IMO) as it is less flexible.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Forget Shoot & Scoot if you want, still we need a Reverse order to just get tanks out of harm's way without turning their back to enemy, isn't it ? [:'(]

The only problem is that you actually can't really reverse in a WW2 tank under combat conditions [:'(]. It is pretty much a gamey feature. But I'm sure, wether gamey or not it will be looked at [;)]

This is incorrect. WWII tanks used reverse under combat conditions extensively. They used it in platoon movements and section movements as 'commands' and even in single vehicle tactics and reactions. The TC can give the driver sufficient relayed commands to reverse a vehicle backwards. Tanks with radio communications can relay information also.

Like discussed above the TC can do this only when buttoned up or if he has something like an advanced cuppola with a mirror system. A TC will definetly not button up to guide his driver when he is under fire from enemy tanks (combat conditions), that has all been discussed allready .......

You mean 'unbutton'.  And you are still wrong.  Just because it has been 'discussed' does not mean anything.  If anything, Dorosh'z example shows that a tanker DID exactly that. 

Read Carius 'Tigers in the mud'.  Tank Commanders were expected to be un-buttoned during firing (as has been discussed before).  One only needs to be 'nose-up'. If they could do that during combat, they could reverse guide the vehicle during combat.

And yes, I have done this myself

[font=arial]
Probably a little hard to be unbuttoned and firing the gun in a one or two man turret, but that may be too much detail.
 
A TC in combat probably could do a "prairie dog"  peek and see if anything was right behind the.   Maybe back up only 10-15m.
I think I read somewhere a buttoned up WWII tank did a panic backup and crushed some of their own infantry that were taking cover behind the tank.[/font][/align]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

[font=arial]
Probably a little hard to be unbuttoned and firing the gun in a one or two man turret, but that may be too much detail.

A TC in combat probably could do a "prairie dog" peek and see if anything was right behind the. Maybe back up only 10-15m.
I think I read somewhere a buttoned up WWII tank did a panic backup and crushed some of their own infantry that were taking cover behind the tank.[/font][/align]

Happend pretty often in fact, also still happens these days.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

You mean 'unbutton'. And you are still wrong. Just because it has been 'discussed' does not mean anything. If anything, Dorosh'z example shows that a tanker DID exactly that.

Read Carius 'Tigers in the mud'. Tank Commanders were expected to be un-buttoned during firing (as has been discussed before). One only needs to be 'nose-up'. If they could do that during combat, they could reverse guide the vehicle during combat.

And yes, I have done this myself

So you fought in WW2 [;)] ?

No, I have read Tigers in the Mud. 

But I have also reversed in tracked vehicles.  Its called a drill.  Just like everything else.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
And yes, I have done this myself

Tell us more Yoozer. I'm interested in the terrain and the situation, the specifics of the maneuver as you have practiced it.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

BTW: This isn't a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say.

Well I read the book in my backyard.  The grass was green and mown recently.  I usually read the words from left to right.

As far as tracked vehicles, A TC with intercom with the driver can easily scream 'reverse!'. If the intent is to quickly pull back to cover, the driver can use his forward 'remembered' vision to know when to stop (or the TC can yell 'halt'). The TC only needs to swing his head around. Drivers pay close attention to their front and take 'snapshots' in thier memories. A common drill while moving and firing is for the driver to memorize the terrain to the front, hear the guns report (raising enough dust to effectively 'blind' him, then close his eye's and drive forward from memory (till past the dust cloud).

More intricate reverse movements can be done with orders like half-left, half-right, etc. Slower but like any drilled manuver, easily accomplished. A vehicle like a Hetzer can do this very easily if the crew is trained together. See the rear of a Hetzer to know why.

If under fire, a driver might not wait for any command. he may take it upon himself to reverse or change facing.

Crunchies need to be ready to clear away from armor.

Hi Yoozer,

I've read you're post very carefully. In regard to reverse, it sounds like you're describing an emergency movement for an individual vehicle, rather than that which might be used by a platoon's vehicles moving back and forth between hull-down, firing positions and full cover 25 meters to the rear. Is that correct?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

It could be either.

In CM, the shoot n scoot command really models a situation where enemy units would be close and any return fire damaging. I read that to mean close terrain.

In the desert, and Russia, there were instances where medium and long range engagements were the norm.

[font=arial]
[font=arial]
[font=arial]You can find a number of reaction backups.  But none are for very long distances.[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]From "By Tank Into Normandy" by Stuart Hills[/font][/align][font=arial]

 The first shot bounced before hitting the Panzer,  There was a plume of blue smoke from its exhaust as it lurched into reverse and stalled.  It started to move again and a second shot hit it as it disappeared into the woods.  The shots would not have penetrated but they might have damaged a track.

 [/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]

 [/font][font=arial]Tension rose as a platoon of infantry slipped past us and hid behind a stone house.  Geoff Storey edged the nose of the tank past a protecting stone wall.  Swish, swish - two anti-tank tracer shells whistled past.  'Reverse', I shouted and Geoff promptly compiled.   They had tried to lure us into a trap.[/font][font=arial]

 [/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]

 Sure enough about two minutes later, there was a terrific of flame and shower of sparks as we were hit.  We fired the Browning machine-gun at what we thought was the direction of the shot and backed furiously if rather clumsily into the main square, thankful to be able to move at all.[/font][font=arial]

 [/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]However, a CM like shoot and scoot order assumes just too much information.   It assumes that a moving element can sight, locate and acquire a target, often stationary and prepared before that stationary enemy can react.   It might.  It might catch them by surprise.   But the odds are against it.[/font][/align][/font][/align][/font][/align]

In CM, the borg spotting made this even gamier.

ORIGINAL: Mobius
However, a CM like shoot and scoot order assumes just too much information.   It assumes that a moving element can sight, locate and acquire a target, often stationary and prepared before that stationary enemy can react.   It might.  It might catch them by surprise.   But the odds are against it.[/size][/font][/align][/size][/font][/align][/size][/font][/align]

In CM it often occurs that the target *does* react sooner ! [X(]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

In CM it often occurs that the target *does* react sooner!

Borg effect notwithstanding, this isn't necessarily unrealistic. When the vehicle "scoots" away from it's hull down position it drops the target. When it advances into firing postition again, it has to reacquire the target. Meanwhile, enemies in overwatch are waiting for it to reappear. This is one of the reasons that it's of limited utility in combat.

Western armoured doctrine is oriented toward minimizing one's exposure while eliminating the enemy threat. This can be best achieved by bringing as many hull-down tubes to bear on the target area as possible, and keeping them in action until the enemy is eliminated. Vehicles do have to back away from their hull down position, but this typically indicates that it's either in trouble (ammo, damage, casualty, etc.,) or is being ordered to withdraw.

BTW, has anyone mentioned that this maneuver is employed in defense, from positions overlooking the enemy line of advance, positions that are best established when pre-positioning/pre-sighting of the friendly armour and target area are possible? A dead giveway to aerial reconnaissance that such a position exists is the presence of AFV tracks leading from the nearest woodline up the slope. Saturating the area with HE during an advance/assault will largely neutralize whatever advantage the pre-positioning would have otherwise achieved.

Prince of Eckmühl (aka ivanmoe)

[font=arial]RTS games need to have the spotting and AI work realistically together or no matter how real they make the ballistic and armor model the game just isn't real.[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]Men don't sight all things to their front instantaneously within their vision.   There are not big yellow lines in the air telling them someone is watching them.  Nor do tanks with their backs turned to an AT gun in hide know to start to turn as soon as the AT crew gets up to ready the gun.  Should they hear a shot go whishing by them they don't man the turret MG and start firing down the yellow line.[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]Unlike a RTS PzC has the luxury of assuming sighting is taking place sometime during the 40 second phase.  But its doesn't have to show at which second.[/font][/align]