Jarmo Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 Just wondering which way you think about it. I always think of my forces as armor with supporting infantry. I also tend to direct my fight against enemy tanks and AT defenses. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 depends what type of fighting are you doing if you are in the city crawling with enemy infantry then sending tanks in far in advance probably bites... The main idea is that it doesn't really matter (in most cases) if Tanks lead or infantry leads it is that the tank's job is to protect the infantry and the infantry's job is to protect the tank. When they get separated, that's trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatAWilson Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 Each has to protect the other. You need tanks to take out hard points and to stop enemy armor from slaughtering your grunts at range. You need infantry to take and hold positions and to keep enemy infantry away from the tanks. In general, each can be used to help the other. Using tanks to suppress infantry is obvious, but the reverse works too. Opening up on enemy tanks with infantry to get them buttoned before attacking them with your armor will greatly improve your armor's chances of winning. In general I must admit that I think about my infantry first and view tanks as support. Probably the only exception to this is when I have a really top notch AT asset (Panther, Firefly, etc.), then my thinking changes as I view these vehicles as having a slightly different primary purpose than the standard Sherman/Cromwell/PzKw IV/Stug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 Infantry are more useful than tanks, as, they are more terrain friendly Infantry can move through forest, urban, and even clear areas relatively well. They can claim and defend areas much better than armoured forces. You can use Infantry without armoured support with better results than armour without infantry support. However, tanks and Infantry used together can be an unbeatable force if positioned and moved correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Brizee Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 I never really liked playing with tanks in any game. CM makes me like it more, but I still love infantry the most Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreasyPig Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 Alway infantry... the queen of battle with tanks as support gp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 4, 2000 Author Share Posted August 4, 2000 I see I'm in a minority of one For me, infantry exists to keep tanks alive, tanks kill the enemy. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwin Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 Oh no, a bunch of infantry fans... I've generally found the better an opponent is with his infantry the more difficult he is to beat. It is with infantry I wish to improve the most. One of my favorite opponents is an infantry wizard, always makes me pay for my rashness but god when I beat him it is pure sweetness ------------------ Mad Gamers Society http://users1.50megs.com/lokesa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 I think of infantry as the main strength of my force. Infantry take a beating and still hold ground. Tanks are either in perfect condition or useless. The infantry can hold the ground, but the tanks are essential support for killing the bad guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 Generally I view defence and attack as a battle against the enemy's tanks since I feel my infantry vs infantry skills can keep me going even if a bit outnumbered. Really though I've met more people proficient in tank combat than in infantry combat so, generally speaking, you should be looking to improve your command of infantry. Too many times I've beaten off a rush after suffering 1 or 2 casualties only to leave 30 or 40 enemy in front of my positions. On the tank vs tank thing most people are pretty even but most people lose their games in the infantry vs infantry fight. Just my opinion based on what I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gezeder Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 i'm still fairly new to this, but i usually think of the infantry as support to keep the tanks alive, the tanks as support to keep the infantry killers alive (eg. self propelled artillery, MG's), and the infantry killers as support to keep the infantry alive from other infantry... perhaps i could have written that better? oh well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darstand Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 I tend to play Allied. I use my tanks to support my infantry. An infantry screen always leads the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdl Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 Infantry finds the enemys strong points and then tanks, arty, and air destroys them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugger Stein Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 I tend to think (as the majority here) of tanks as a support element to infantry. And I try to use old fasion battlefield tacticts of maneauvor (christ how do you spell that?, I´m Swedish by the way) with quite static superior firing positions (I.e high ground). Works generelly great both on the defence and offence in small scenarios. But I always like to see the enemy armor as my main objective, once they are knocked out I try to overrun the VL:s. Come to think of it, I use the infantry to scout for enemy tanks and then, when they get in trouble (my inf)I train my guns on the foe, arguably, this is a tactic with shifting roles and not a static one. I got me confused... hmm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 5, 2000 Author Share Posted August 5, 2000 To clarify, what I stated above is just the way I think! Of course I still kill infantry with infantry. In fact, my way of fighting is probably wery similar to most others here. Even if the way I think about forces isn't. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 Well, a tactic I like to use is to get my armour killed off really early giving my opponent a false sense of security. Without fear from my armour they feel that they can just sweep in with their armour and infantry and take the victory points, not remembering that Infantry are powerful AT units It has worked many times, even thouth losing my tanks wasn't REALLY part of the plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkeye Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 Infantry are the workhorse. They can repel armor by themselves if they need to. I get afraid when I have tanks under my command because I know I'm going to lose them and every time one of those expensives beasts goes up I frown real hard. They're nice and all but they're much harder to use because there's always a faust or a schreck in hiding. You can't be really aggressive with them except in a few circumstances. They're definitely support because they're pretty helpless sometimes whereas infantry just need a little bit of cover and they can work miracles. Besides, I abhor battles that are decided by armor. They're just not reliable enough! Hawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 Tanks? Aren't those the smelly things with smelly people inside that always start emanating black smoke and a BBQ smell a short time after my game starts? Why would I want those? The lungs of my grunts are bad enough for all the Woodbines they smoke, don't need no exhaust fumes to boot. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre76 Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 I find that the one who is victoriuos in the tank battle, win the whole battle. With this I mean that the peroson who has the last tank (not TD) can with the support of this tank win the battle. André Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 I use tanks primarily as infantry support. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 You can neither take nor hold ground with tanks. War always comes down to the grunt and his personal weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 After some deep thought and soul searching, I find myself to be (somewaht suprisingly) of the Armor+Infantry crowd in CM. For QB, I always shape my purchases around what AFVs I want/think I'll need. During play, I think I tend to use the infantry more as a stop line in the defense and as screening forces for my AFVs in the advance. Maybe I need to play some more infantry only battles. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 Tanks definitely add a lot of punch to your offense and can make the core of a counterattacking reserve on defense. But they are also a lot of eggs to put into one basket, so numerically the bulk of my force is usually infantry in the ratio of once company of infantry to one platoon of tanks. I thought I'd try an exception to that rule and am presently playing a QB using a company each of tanks and infantry. If anything interesting turns up as a result, I'll post it. Meanwhile, I must admit the extra firepower is a blast. But I may feel different about it if I get a rash of brew-ups. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: You can neither take nor hold ground with tanks. War always comes down to the grunt and his personal weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is always a lot of fun to teach others that lesson. I had a PBEM in which my opponent thought that putting two Panzer IV on a VL about 60m from the closest building was a way to win the game. Their infantry support consisted of the pathetic remnants of a SS Pioneer Squad. I had not tanks left, but it was a village map, and my French combat engineers had already cut his infantry to Schnitzel. It was a lot of fun sneaking my guys up for the kill. One tank fell to a zook, the other to a close-assault. Lesson learned. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberst Angsthase Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 I confess I "woo-hoo!" a little louder when I get tanks as reinforcements, but in truth it's the infantry that forms the core. I have gone against tanks & infantry using only infantry and won, I have never been able to hold off infantry with a tank-only force. A platoon used correctly is much harder to kill than a tank, can split into 7 separate units and thus can cover a larger area, can scatter better, can hide better, can move through more terrain, can sneak towards the enemy, and can fight anywhere. Having tanks makes the infantry's job easier, but it's infantry's job, not the tank's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts