Infantry Assaults

[Larry Holt]

Fantastic discussion!!

OK, I have two gripes:

1)Soviet squads equipped with moltov cocktails (could also be other armies with them but I've only tried the Soviets): They have some chance to hit, shown by the pop up box just before the attack is resolved. It seems if they hit, they are always (100% of the time) effective. BUT just because they hit the target does not mean that the burning gasoline should always destroy the target. I mean, AT rounds must first hit, then penetrate. I do not have any statistical analysis from WWII on the number of MCs thown that were effective but one of the things I learned in the current US Army is that MCs are NOT very effective. When the container breaks, most of the fuel is consumed in a fire ball, leaving little fuel for raising the temperature of the target to the burning point. I think MCs should either have a two step attack resolution (hit then effect) or have their effectiveness reduced.

2) My attacks by elite (~110 experience) German engineers on imobilized Soviet tanks show a probability of around 30%! How hard is it to place a satchel charge under an imobile tank? Granted some troops would be shaking in their boots for fear of supporting fire hitting them while crawling up on a tank but elite, battle hardened troops? I think the routine should boost the to hit probability way up there (+90% or so) for veteran or elite troops with low suppression (5 or so). Clearly green troops or highly suppressed troops could still rush up and stumble or run away from fear so they should not get any advantage.

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

[orc4hire]

Igor,
Well, the fellow was firing the bazooka at 15 yards... if that doesn't qualify for a close assault, then let's look at it this way; you're saying that improvised weapons are more much effective than a bazooka, _and that that is realistic_. Now, that being the case, why were the troops so excited about getting effective AT weapons? (Bazooka, PAIT, Panzerfaust, etc.)
And as for your example, you tell me; give me an example. And don't forget to include some '40 infantry; SPWAW doesn't distinguish between your eager beaver '42 boys and the panzer fever flee in terror '40 boys.

Daniel,
The effect you're talking about is what's called in SPWAW 'firing on' the unit. Rifle fire will cause suppression on tanks, and is not what we are talking about. I'll see if I can hunt up a copy of that book, but in the meantime, riddle me this:

Would a real world WWII squad's chance of destroying a tank with improvised weapons, with no more than a few minutes to prepare for and carry out the attack, be more like 8% or 60%?

Oh, and read up on the incident of the KV-1 in June or July of '41 that held up a German division for something like 2 days. Buttoned up, immobilized (stuck in the mud, if I recall correctly), the Germans couldn't take it out. Engineers snuck up on it in the dark to place demo charges; nope. In SPWAW there's no way in hell that tank would've lasted more than a few turns; enough time for a squad to get next to it.

[Daniel Oskar]

Originally posted by orc4hire:

Would a real world WWII squad's chance of destroying a tank with improvised weapons, with no more than a few minutes to prepare for and carry out the attack, be more like 8% or 60%?

Oh, and read up on the incident of the KV-1 in June or July of '41 that held up a German division for something like 2 days. In SPWAW there's no way in hell that tank would've lasted more than a few turns; enough time for a squad to get next to it.[/B]

I would say that a squad's chance of destroying a tank with improvised weapons would be dependant on a number of variables. Does the tank know that theyr'e there? Are they in close terrain, or the wide open spaces. If the squad is on the open plains of russia woth a satchel charge, I'd have to say 8%. In dense vegitation, or urban terrain, maybe closer to 60%.

If your KV-1 story is the one I'm thinking of the Germans finally dragged up an 88 Flak to solve their problems. It comes back to terrain. In the wide open spaces you can't get close enough with your weapon. I suppose you could wait for dark, but then what is the visability? A lot of variables. You are right though, in SPWaW it would have died quickly.

I think the game system models the assaults well with one exception. It is not realistic for a single squad with improvised weapons to take on all comers in a single turn. Regardless of what the hit % is I can't imagine a rifle squad swarming over a tank platoon and doing them in in that short a period of time. You'd be passing out boxes of Knights Crosses!

[orc4hire]

Daniel,

You're a little more optimistic than me. :} I'd put the chances at about 3% in 'typical' ground, maybe 25-30% in very close terrain. And that would be quite enough to make tankers nervous about poking their noses into the woods; that's 25% per squad, and who knows how many squads might be lurking in there. Still, we aren't all that far apart.

On the KV-1 story, I don't recall now how it ended... I think the crew may finally have just given up. But the engineers were only sent in after 1 or 2 attempts to bring up 88s had failed; they had to set up in the KVs line of sight, obviously, and it knocked them out while they were setting up. The engineers did get close enough to set their charges, but didn't take it out.

But I agree completely; if 1 assault were all a unit got per turn, succeed or fail, regardless of morale, that would go a long, long way towards taming the wild infantry. :}

[Charles22]

Just a small note here, and I don't guarantee that you'll always see these results as a lot of factors could've changed things, but this is my report from the Western Front 5/40, playing as Gerry.

I had a platoon of "engineers", with flamethrowers, as you may imagine. A platoon or two of S35s came into wood positions, from which they were assaulted by engineers in clear positions.

I would estimate that 60-70% of the attempted assaults failed and the stated chance was never over 50%. There was one exception however. The leader squad had snuck around to a hex adjacent to one of the woods hexes flanking them, which in itself was wooded. This engineer was definitely unspotted (though I believe some of the other assaults were unspotted way as well) and his chance was 83% I believe it was (in the low 80s anyway) and he succeeded.

[kao16]

I've never really found that close assaults have such a high probability of success as others seem to have (admittedly in a late battle in WB's U2R one of my top airborne squads made at least 4 successful OP-fire close assualts against tanks who were adjacent to the building they were hiding in - overlooking a VH which the German tanks congregated in - but normally I don't have a high success rate in close assaults that I initiate (as opposed to OP-Fire)- even with veteran/elite airborne).

Mind you, in WB's WF I have have had a problenm with a SO sniper who successfully close assaulted a Stug III (I ran the move several times (2) with the same result).

Is the real problem that the bad guys (AI) are being more successful than your forces, or are people experiencing the easy close assault kills in games against other players (PBEM, online etc)?

[orc4hire]

kao16

Neither; I (and others) are experiencing too much success against AI forces. I don't have a large enough sample pool to make a judgement about playing against another human.

I just now finished a rather sharp little skirmish; a generated battle pitting 1 German infantry company reinforced by a couple 50mm ATGs and with a handfull of mines out front against, well, a pile of Russians in June, '43. Infantry toughness and spotting both knocked down to 90%, air flights limited to 2.

Infantry vs. tanks were 100% effective. 2 tanks taken out at 2 hex range with rifle grenades, 2 immobilized by assaults, 4 destroyed by assault. No failures to assault, no failures to achieve results.


I wonder, does knocking down the infantry toughness affect gun crews as well?

[bravo.john]

Originally posted by orc4hire:
Ah, that sets the number of flights....cool. Okay, definitly time to start monkeying with the preferences. Thanks.

The downside is all those saved points are likely to be spent on artillery. I'm playing the long campaign as Germany, up to 5/40 and in Belgium. The Belgians have 55 batteries of 4.5in guns and more than 120 mortars.

[Sami]

Originally posted by Larry Holt:
Fantastic discussion!!

OK, I have two gripes:

1)Soviet squads equipped with moltov cocktails (could also be other armies with them but I've only tried the Soviets): They have some chance to hit, shown by the pop up box just before the attack is resolved. It seems if they hit, they are always (100% of the time) effective. BUT just because they hit the target does not mean that the burning gasoline should always destroy the target. I mean, AT rounds must first hit, then penetrate. I do not have any statistical analysis from WWII on the number of MCs thown that were effective but one of the things I learned in the current US Army is that MCs are NOT very effective. When the container breaks, most of the fuel is consumed in a fire ball, leaving little fuel for raising the temperature of the target to the burning point. I think MCs should either have a two step attack resolution (hit then effect) or have their effectiveness reduced.

- A very good point. The MCs were effective mostly against the tanks in the initial period of WW2. BTW, The Red Army didn't use MCs before June 1941 (source:Russian Military Zone).
The MC was a part of the Finnish pioneers equipment from mid-30s onward. In 1939 it became an "official AT-weapon". The MC was used in two ways:
1) to burn the tank (the prerequisite for this was, that the MC had to break in the back part of the tank, so that the hot engine would catch fire. If the burning liquid didn't reach the inside of the tank, the MC's effectiveness was seriously reduced.

2) the MC was also intended to be used as a "blinding device". The Finnish AT-teams had generally two men. Before the war, the actions of these two men would go like this: the other would throw a MC on the front hull of the tank, where the flames and smoke would reduce the visibility from the tank, the other would then have a better chance to throw a satchel charge on the tank.

In general, the MC proved less valuable as a "blinding device", than as a direct AT-weapon. The engine intakes of the early Soviet tanks were very vulnerable for MCs, while late war tanks were almost MC-proof.


Cheers,
Sami

[Kluckenbill]

Although I still think that Infantry is too effective against tanks, I fel obliged to relate my experience from last night.

I'm deep into Watchword Freedom. I've advanced upon a victory area in rough terraqin and am counterattacked by the Russians. In this particular action, they have 2 KV85's and a Tank Descent Platoon, I have a Tiger and three Spec Op's platoons with 6 to 9 men in them. First my Tiger pops away innefectively at the KV's (this brings me back to another problem, the relative innefectiveness of guns at 1 hex range) followed by close assaults by all three squads. The squads all had to-hit percentages over 50%, one was over 80%. You guessed it, no effect, and this with veteran squads equipped with satchel charges! I then used the rest of my shots to chase away the Russian infantry.

In the Russian's turn, he was lucky against my tank and took it out, and I finally knocked out one of the KV's with close assault Op fire, the other tanks crew had panicked and left their vehicle. Naturally, they were easy pickings.

I just thought this was funny because after my earlier rant, here was a case of tanks standing up well to good infantry.



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

[Paul Vebber]

While the game doesn't explicitly model relative speed across LOS, its actually a lot HARDER to hit once you get very close. Think of it this way - if a target is moving 20 mph across your LOS at 500 yards and you see it moving rather slowly, relative to you moving toward it. Now put that target at 50 yards, and the angular rate you have to turn to keep a bead on it is tremendous.

[Charles22]

I've never had the problem with being unable to reliably hit tanks when one hex away with another gun. Every time I hear this idea brought up, I'm having to wonder if people just think that when up that close you should be hitting 95%-100% of the time.

I have noticed that the estimates for AT fire are often very off, for there's no way I'm getting the overall percentage that is claimed. It seems that shots from AT guns that claim 40-60% chance, are more like 10-20%, while the shots that are 70-99% seem accurate predictions. I'm talking not one battle, but very many over the course of SPWAW. Anyone else notice this? In my mind, what's important is that the tanks are hitting with something approaching historical consistency, but it does seem that the 'predictor' is pretty far off particularly in the 40-60% range.

[JTGEN]

Good discussion

I do not think yhe infartry is too effective against tanks when they are equipped with AT weapons. On the contrary, when an unescorted tank gets to the adjacent hex to bazoocas or panzerfausts it should be knocked out more often than they do when played by human. The computer gets a better chance as usual.

I am a Finn and we were in my mind saved in 39 by the nice welcoming coctail for visiting tanks (name Molotow does not come as the inventor but as Stalins foreign minister)and 44 by panzerfausts from becoming a Soviet sosialist republic. I remember seing in a TV interview of a guy who personally destroyed 25 Soviet tanks in one battle. It was in 39' so it was MC's or Satchell Charges that did the job.(show was a series about guys who had the highest finnish medal the Mannerheim Cross)

In urban or forest the infartry should be more effecient than in a field or in a plain as they can more easily get close to the tank without getting in to the sights of the tanks machinegun.

The infartry without AT weapons is too effective. When snipers and crews destroy tanks it is good joke. I have lost a couple of Panthers to fleeing enemy tank crews that should not be carrying anything bigger than pistols, but maybe they kicked through the tanks armour and then shot the crew.

I think the at-rifles are undervalued. I liked them a lot when plaing Soviets against US in 45' as they were cheap and able to destroy the halftracs and jeeps and damaging the stuarts from 10 hexes and being small and not so easy to spot.

[Kluckenbill]

I guess I wasn't very clear on my 1 hex hit gripe. In the example I gave, the Tiger missed with the first shot, but hit with the next two. I hit each KV once, hoping to at least do some damage to each of them. I think there was no effect, although I suspect it did lower their morale since they didn't return fire on my tanks or infantry during my whole fire phase.


I realize this has been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere in this board, but it seems to me that when you hit a tank, it is harder to knock it out at point blank range than it is when the range is 4 or 5 hexes.


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

[orc4hire]

Kluckenbill,

I suspect the angle has something to do with it.... When you're 1 hex away you only have 6 different angles of fire at the bad guy, and he may be positioned in such a way that none of those options are good; they all give his armor a greater relative slope to you. If you're 2-3 hexes away, you have a lot more options for lining up a shot.

[Kluckenbill]

I agree, or at least as I remember it that was the eventual determination that was made the last time this was discussed on this board. What's frustrating is that you don't know in advance whether you are in one of the "unlucky" hexes to attack a target. Also I must admit that it was only two hits on a pretty good tank, so it may just have been the nature of the penetration numbers and not the one-hex fluke.

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

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
I think what you are seeing here is getting used to what works against the AI. A have never seen an infantry platoon take out a whole tank company. Hardly the expected result...???


[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited December 29, 2000).]

Really REALLY good point there Paul. I dont think that the 'AI factor' is given enough credit here for some of the stranger or more 'controversial' results alot of players get.

A perfect example i had that highlighted this was in my examination of the Japanese infantry recently. Up till recently my only experience against them had been playing some of the 'canned' scenerios against the AI (AI playing the Japanese) and all during the early years of the Pacific campaign when the Japanese Tide was running high.

After a half dozen scenerios where i was consistantly wiping the walls with them, and slaughtering experienced and battle-hardened troops with even GREEN units (in both open and closed terrain....long and short range) i was almost on the verge of suspecting that there was a "problem" with the Japanese Infantry resolutions....one that went far beyond their 'no surrender/no retreat' National Characteristic.

The Assault on Corregidor scenerio was the worse culprit. There, fighting with Green troops whose Morale and Exp ratings averaged 50 at best and with the exception of the Bomb chutes, poorly equiped as well, i once more slaughtered elite SNLF and experienced IJA units, many at medium ranges as well as closer.

I was really scratching my head after that long battle, and was ready to post my theory on the board when i decided to replay the whole thing as the Japanese (Thank God for being able to put the msg delay down to zero!)

Well needless to say it turned out my fear of a 'Japanese INF bug' turned out to be just that, a groundless fear. Playing carefully and using hard learned infantry tactics (seeking cover terrain, concentration of forces, cautious advance vs the AI's reckless charges etc) I was able to take advantage of my units average of up to 30-40 points in experience and morale and weapons superiority to give the AI American side an even worse pasting then the one i'd given to the Japanese as the Ameri player.

The AI made it even more a slaughter, moving its inexperienced units and reinforcements at top speed over open terrain right into the guns of my waiting infantry.

It was'nt pretty to say the least.

So in short.....before we all cry FOUL on some aspect of the game....i'd suggest Acid Testing these theories on other players or even play against yourself given the AI's outstanding ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Heh, just did it again in the Turncoats! scenerio....took a Bulgarian force with 30's and 40's for exp and fought a German force of 60's and 70's to a bloody draw against the AI! Hands down the worst quality force i'd ever had to battle with, and the AI still nearly gave me victory. (a few more VP's and i would have scored the marginal victory.....DOH!)

Still though, i did experience also my first weird close assault effect too. A two man Southerland ATR unit close assaulted a German STuG (and i dont think it was unspotted either because i had been firing away with it) and got a 30% chance despite the main weapon having Malfunctioned during the assault! The STuG stll went bye bye.

odd result. Exp of the unit was 52 too!

[orc4hire]

Nikademus,

AI clumbsiness certainly magnifies the effect; if you never let enemy infantry assault your tanks, the fact that they have an absurd chance of succeeding in assaults doesn't matter. But that doesn't change the fact that when the assaults do happen, they succeed too often.

[kao16]

I have found that if I can shoot at infantry before they get to me they generally fail their close assault, while a suprise attack succeeds more often than not (e.g., I managed to take out a T-34/85 with a GE sniper that snuk up behind and close assaulted - this makes up for the SO sniper in a biulding taking out my Stug III earlier.

It is possible that even recce by fire will reduce the effectiveness of close assault as you move your AFVs through bush and built up areas (also infantry either on the tank or just in the same hex can reduce the success of close assaults, or so it appears).

[Pack Rat]

I was playing a M. Whittman scenario and managed to lose his tank. It didn't stop him he took out a lot of tanks before finally being killed.

------------------

Your mine is a terrible thing to lose.
Pack Rat