Major concern: Armor

[CptWaspLuca]

I'm a big HTTR and COTA fan, and I reviewed COTA for NWI (www.netwargamingitalia.net); I will review BtfB too.

My biggest concern about the series is about "armor invulnerability".

I played 3 times Hofen Ho-Down. Those M5 are nearly indestructible! In the first 2 games I was the German player, and I saw an M5 squad passing through a full german battalion in Monshau WITHOUT ANY infantry support: 0 losses!!!

The same, I remember, happened to me in the Maleme scenario of COTA: I was German, the allies had a pair of tanks; they became stuck and surrounded, and I was unable to kill them, NO WAY.

I tried keeping the Americans: I sent the 5 M5s on open ground. They were hit by maybe 20 artillery strikes, small arms and heavy weapons, they retreated 3 or 4 times, but I had no losses. Ehm...

I think that the engine should manage better isolated tanks/vehicles without infantry support, specially in towns/forests. I think that in reality the 5 M5 in Monshau had no hope at all. I feel the armors very overrated.

[Arjuna]

Do you have a saved game of this so I could run some tests?

Did the german battalion you mentioned have any ammo left for its pzSchrecks or pzFausts?

What was the calibre of the arty you fired at the M5s? How many rounds do you reckon they fired?

[Sheytan]

Even without dedicated AT weapons the infantry should have a close assault AT value. Lack thereof is a serious ommision. Many tanks in WW2 fell prey to improvised AT weapons like the molotov cocktail especially in urban or built up areas.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Do you have a saved game of this so I could run some tests?

Did the german battalion you mentioned have any ammo left for its pzSchrecks or pzFausts?

What was the calibre of the arty you fired at the M5s? How many rounds do you reckon they fired?

[jomni]

And do Armor break down on bad terrain like woods, rocky, muddy, snowy terrain?
In HTTR I have no problem sending armour across the woods.  I just get some movement penalty but I don't believe I lose vehicles because of the terrain.
BftB has some snow so I suppose some breakdown risk should be present.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

Even without dedicated AT weapons the infantry should have a close assault AT value. Lack thereof is a serious ommision. Many tanks in WW2 fell prey to improvised AT weapons like the molotov cocktail especially in urban or built up areas.

I very much doubt this. I'd be interested to see your sources.

[Arimus]

The whole purpose of zimmerit was to prevent soviet infantry from attaching AT magnetic mines to their tanks. The Germans also added a mortar system that ejected rounds out of the top of the turret to ward off close assault infantry. However, that was the Russians on the eastern front. The Germans had magnetic mines and an AT HEAT grenade which kinda looked like a lawn dart. But I think that was mostly for defense and assaulting tanks by hand was more popular in hollywood than in the actual war.

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Do you have a saved game of this so I could run some tests?

Did the german battalion you mentioned have any ammo left for its pzSchrecks or pzFausts?

What was the calibre of the arty you fired at the M5s? How many rounds do you reckon they fired?

Hi Arjuna, thank you for the response.

Saved games: no, normally I use only 1 slot and the current one is irrelevant to the problem; but I will provide you a save game next time.

But I have examined the situation thoroughly during the game: yes, the battalion was equipped with anti tank weapons, it was the I.752, complete, only light losses. It was deployed around Monshau in defend mode, a lot of ammo left, 2 companies south of the bridges, 1 on the right and 1 on the left of the northern bridge. They fired maybe 2 times "red", but no M5 was hit.

You can try this: with allies, select the southern most M5 squad and send it X:5300 and Y:4560. I know, it's a bad move, but I tried it to verify damage, and no M5 was destroyed. Normally I find that armors are lost:
1) when you are assaulting infantry directly and very close to it
2) by AT fire from AT cannons and tanks
But it seems that if you let them alone, with a move or defend command, even surrounded by infantry, they are very tough. But in reality (think to the Krinkelt fight, the "Panzers graveyard") tanks without infantry are useless and very vulnerable, not only M5s but even Tigers!

As a German, I don't fired artillery against the M5s, they were too close to my units (they passed on the route, from south to north, ignoring them). When I used the Allies the AI fired some large artillery to the exposed M5s, by the size of the explosions I'm sure it wasn't only mortar fire. I will play a lot in the next month, so I will provide you with some save file, I hope.

Thank you for your work!

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

Even without dedicated AT weapons the infantry should have a close assault AT value. Lack thereof is a serious ommision. Many tanks in WW2 fell prey to improvised AT weapons like the molotov cocktail especially in urban or built up areas.

Totally agreed.

At Arnhem Red Devils used some strange "sticky" bomb with some effect, too. An isolated tank is vulnerable to simple AT grenades: they were very risky to use, because they were heavy and bulky, but they worked usually fine against light armored vehicles. And I remember an episode, maybe from the Arnhem or Anzio battle, where a tank was disabled with a sapper charge placed by a brave soldier directly over the engine.

In my Ardennes accounts (Osprey) I read about a lot of tanks lost to the mud and to mechanical breakdown. In the game this doesn't occur. KG Peiper tried at some point to pass in the fields, but without any success: some tanks and vehicles were lost in the mud.

[Henri]

Its true that tanks are more effective when supported by infantry.

But in a one-hour TV program ("Famous tank battles") last night on the Canadian History Channel, which concentrated on Peiper's attempt to reach the Meuse, all of the real-life veterans from both sides who were on the program described tank battles without the presence of infantry on the German side. All of the stories shown were attacks or defense against columns of German tanks (typically four)with no mention of infantry.

Now I know that Peiper's Kampfgruppe had more infantry than tanks, but since he was in a hurry to get to the Meuse (he didn't make it of course), it is quite reasonable that there were many incidents of tanks running ahead of the infantry (and maybe the cases where the attacks had the right balance of tanks and infantry did not leave enough witnesses for the producers to find...). And the title of the program is "Famous Tank Battles" so it could be biased a bit.[:'(]

Anyway one US AT gunner described a US AT gun bouncing shell after shell off a Tiger until the Tiger dispatched it with a single shot. Another one described his Sherman shooting shell after shell into the front armor of A Tiger from 20 feet away until the Tiger fired a single shot ripping a hole in the Sherman's turret, after which the Sherman hightailed it out of there and lived to tell the tale.

What I understood from that program was that in the Battle of the Bulge, both US Shermans and AT guns were unable to destroy German Panthers and Tigers from the front, and could only destroy or immobilize them from the side or rear. Sherman Fireflies with the more powerful gun were few and far between, but were not mentioned in the program.

So one question that comes to mind is whether in the cases that you mention, the tanks were being fired at from the front.

Henri

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: Henri

Its true that tanks are more effective when supported by infantry.

But in a one-hour TV program ("Famous tank battles") last night on the Canadian History Channel, which concentrated on Peiper's attempt to reach the Meuse, all of the real-life veterans from both sides who were on the program described tank battles without the presence of infantry on the German side. All of the stories shown were attacks or defense against columns of German tanks (typically four)with no mention of infantry.

In my accounts of the battle this was the major tactical problem that prevented success at Stavelot, or at Krinkelt. Thay had no or little infantry, and tanks alone are useless. Krinkelt is known as the Panzer Graveyard, and those tanks were all lost to light AT fire and Bazooka fire. It's exactly what I'm saying: in reality infantry with a lot of AT rockets is lethal to isolated armors, you can hit them from the high or from the rear at close range. 5 M5 (a light tank, not a Tiger) can pass alone under the nose of a german battalion with AT rockets and remain alive? In reality, no.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

Even without dedicated AT weapons the infantry should have a close assault AT value. Lack thereof is a serious ommision. Many tanks in WW2 fell prey to improvised AT weapons like the molotov cocktail especially in urban or built up areas.

Interesting, a couple of people were debating the deadliness of flamethrowers vs buttoned AFV's in a boardgame series I played.

I came up with the following to refute the claim that they were effective:

"Research by John D. Salt at the Public Records Office in the United Kingdom has unearthed other interesting operational research of flamethrowers in action with British forces in the Second World War...

Finally, ...effectiveness against AFVs was known to be poor. WO 291/1139, "Drop tank incendiary bombs used in the anti-tank role", mentions that trials of flamethrowers against AFVs showed that it was difficult to get fuel inside the AFV. An open driver's hatch would admit fuel; an open commander's hatch with more difficulty, as it was harder to "loft" the fuel to turret height. Hits on the (internal) mantlet area of the Churchill admitted fuel. Vehicles with engine louvres on the rear deck could be disabled by flaming from the rear, which ignites fan-belts and damages ignition wires. It is pointed out that attack from above, as with an air attack, seems to be the most favourable aspect when using flame."

I don't doubt that the odd Molotov would score a critical hit but back to the OP, I've killed a company of MkIV's with arty/AP fire.

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
flamethrowers

I agree, flamethrowers were normally ineffective. Panzerfausts and Panzershreks were very effective, used in big quantity. During the fall of Berlin the Red Army had lot of losses from such weapons even when used by civilians!

[mikeCK]

I was under the belief that artillery was pretty useless at destroying tanks absent a direct hit. It was used to disrupt armored attacks by killing accompanying infantry and causing the tanks to button up. Blind and confused tanks are ripe for
anti tank attack. Am I wrong?

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

I was under the belief that artillery was pretty useless at destroying tanks absent a direct hit. It was used to disrupt armored attacks by killing accompanying infantry and causing the tanks to button up. Blind and confused tanks are ripe for
anti tank attack. Am I wrong?

About artillery: you are right for medium/heavy tanks, but an M5 should not survive an intensive barrage in the open. But this is secondary, my real concern is about isolated tanks against infantry with AT weapons at close range. As you point out they should be at the mercy of the infantry.

I add a new thought: another weapon used with very good effects by american defenders in the ardennes was the AT mine, even put on the surface of the road. Think to the Monshau happenings that I described: in reality it was sufficient a pair of AT mines placed on the road to ambush the M5s. If you are surrounded by enemy infantry and you can't go around the mine with your vehicle, you are stuck in a very bad situation!

[Arimus]

Not if that infantry is out of ammo, suppressed, routed, and fatigued. The Red Devils were an elite paratroop unit, surrounded and desperate. Not a good example to apply to the entire western front in terms of tank vs infantry.

[Capt Cliff]

A grenade bundle vs. a M5 should work. But all German infantry units had Panzerfausts, the panzershrek might be limited but not the one shot babies. The TO&E might be wrong.

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: Arimus

Not if that infantry is out of ammo, suppressed, routed, and fatigued. The Red Devils were an elite paratroop unit, surrounded and desperate. Not a good example to apply to the entire western front in terms of tank vs infantry.

Ok but I had an entire battalion of fresh Germans, not fatigued and full of ammo
And a lot of them (the Red Devils at Arnhem) was in action for the first time.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

I was under the belief that artillery was pretty useless at destroying tanks absent a direct hit. It was used to disrupt armored attacks by killing accompanying infantry and causing the tanks to button up. Blind and confused tanks are ripe for
anti tank attack. Am I wrong?

Artillery can do scary things to AFVs even when a shell falls 30m from a vehicle.

[Larac]

Make sure all the weapon data for those units and systems were correct, there are some, The Bren as example where the data was missing, so it had no effect.

A single error in data could account for what you saw.

Lee

[Arjuna]

Why don't you create a little test scenario. Deploy your German Inf Bn and then your M5 coy. Have the M5 move to the German defensive position and see what happens. Make sure that all units are at 80 to 100% effective ( morale, fatigue, cohesion ) and ditto for supplies. Let me know the results.