Ken Talley Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 I have noticed tanks carrying troops in many of the screenshots available. I am curious how common was it for infantry to ride on tanks. I know it happened but I am not sure that it was extremely common on the western front. Are there drawbacks to the tanks performance if they are carrying infantry? I am also curious about reinforcements. I understand that the scenario designer can apply percentages to the arrival of reinforcements. Can the scenario designer set reinforcements as a percentage chance available one time only on a specific turn? Can he also set a percentage chance which applies each turn from a starting turn? Or even an increasing percentage chance starting on a specific turn? I am hoping for maximum flexibility in the scenario editor . Thanks, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 I have noticed tanks carrying troops in many of the screenshots available. I am curious how common was it for infantry to ride on tanks. I know it happened but I am not sure that it was extremely common on the western front. Are there drawbacks to the tanks performance if they are carrying infantry? On that note, what kind of modifier is there to fire against such infantry. Perhaps cover from the front (asuming the infantry are on the back deck and not festooned all over) and a bonus to the fire from the sides and back. All accounts I have ever read cite examples of infantry riding on tanks as an administrative technique (Canadian Army). Simply to get to an FUP or RV. Then the infantry debus and shake out/occupy for the assault/advance/defence/delay, etc.... Thats not to say that this ability for infantry should not exist. It should be modelled so that it is useful for what it is. If you're caught on the back of a tank when an MG opens fire you can put your head between your legs and ......Well you know. The player should be punished for poor tactics such as driving tanks with infantry up to the objective with the intention of a thunderous assault only to have three MGs open up at 100m and chew all those men into,......whatever. Two bits... Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 I think the practice was fairly common place for the Germans, Ive seen countless photos of their tanks ladened with troops. Not many of the allies though. I think it would probably be advisable to dismount them before you contact the enemy though. I images if you lost a tank with troops on board, a descent chunk of the troops would go with it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 I imagine for the fire modifier, it would just be like troops standing in the open.. From the photos I've seen, they really have to pack on there, so theres bound to be a good target or two for enemy riflemen. And my guess is, if they take any real fire at all, they're gonna bail anyway. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the practice was fairly common place for the Germans, Ive seen countless photos of their tanks ladened with troops. Not many of the allies though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe the Russians were the first to commonly do this,with the Germans taking the idea from them.The Western Allies,of course,along with the Russians late in the war,had enough dedicated motorized transport for the infrantry where it wouldn't generally be necessary. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Arabian Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 My understading was that it was SOP for all armies to disembark well before contact with the enemy - tanks tend to be magnets for big guns/explosions/etc., and near misses that wouldn't damage a tank could do all sorts of fun things to the infantry. The scale for CM would imply that they would have probably already bailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 I believe it was SOP for the Soviets due to the fact that their tank and infantry co-ordination was horrid at most times and that most attacks of tanks accompanied by dismounted infantry fell apart as the tanks outran the infantry early on and thus became easy targets for German infantry. Stick the infantry ON the tanks, give the tanks orders to engage any position which fired on it and the infantry orders to suppress any position which fired on a tank (and if necessary dismount and assault on foot) and you can see that this was ssimply the best way the Red Army had of ensuring that sufficient troops would get within range of German infantry to disrupt the German infantry anti-tank battle. It was expensive in terms of men of course but it was better than the alternative and less expensive in terms of materiel than the alternative. So, when you have many men you choose to sacrifice them to preserve materiel. The Germans began to copy it themselves but it was relatively rare in the US and UK armies since they were amply motorised. hell Anzio ended up with something like 1 vehicle for every 3 men in the beachhead . Now THAT's motorisation for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 FWIW though while it was possible (as is shown in the screenshots) it'd be a very foolish commander indeed who did not dismount his infantry from tanks on the reverse slope of hills before cresting them. Anything which brews up a tank is highly likely to severely attrit the carried infantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 OK, I am going to try and do one post to answer all questions here Ken... Troops on tanks happened all the time. Basically foot sloggers are lazy and will hitch a ride whenever they can, and tankers are paranoid and love having a bunch of hardcore guys riding along to keep away enemy infantry The problems with men on tanks is not so much performance, but one of capacity. Some tanks simply didn't have the deck space to accomodate many (or any) troops. However, men on tanks could be a problem when coming under fire and therefore OFFICIALLY I think all armies in WWII stated that troops were never supposed to hitch a ride. That order appears to have held as much water as a thimble with holes in it. Each reinforcement slot (4 of 'em I think) can be assigned a Turn and a Percentage. So you can say that Reinforcement Slot 1 will come on Turn 2, 100% of the the time, while Slot 2 could show up no sooner than Turn 10 only 5% of the time. Rob... Don't worry, infantry on tanks are dead ducks if someone starts to shoot at the tank. Not only will directed fire against the tank have a VERY good chance of hitting the passengers, but indirect fire also kills. Saw a Sherman hits the side of a King Tiger with a 75mm AP round. Won't lokely hurt the KT, but the riding infantry would be lucky to have less than 50% casualties. As you say, the infantry was not supposed to ride on the tank INTO battle, but UP TO the battle. Totally different tactic. Chris... In CM passengers bail according to the level of threat and the speed of the vehicle. So passengers on a tank will hop off from rifle fire, even if the vehicle is moving (slowly), while the same unit in a HT would stay put even if it were standing still. Vehicles moving fast will likely retain their passengers even if they suffer casualties. Fionn... The Germans started riding on tanks like the Soviets for the same reasons they did it -> lack of armored motor transport and huge distances. The Western Allies had more transport (that Anzio figure is funny ) and shorter distances, so less need to ride on tanks. It did happen, and it was fairly common to take teams (Bazooka, FOs, etc), so CM places no SOP restrictions on the Western Allies. Just put guys on your tanks at your own risk Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts