Anti tank team problems

[Gentleman]

Is there any chance of Anti tank teams being given sidearms?

Its always in the back of my mind they should have but when I played a game last night only to watch my AT team burst into a building only to discover an enemy AT team there as well!. Needless to say they appeared to have a chat, a cup of tea (yes my side was British) but no signs of brutual battlefield violence.

By the way still a great game and I hope all those who work on it (that includes all you mod guys too) are very proud of what you have created.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gentleman:

Needless to say they appeared to have a chat, a cup of tea (yes my side was British) but no signs of brutual battlefield violence.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMAOPMP...... Can you see it, This occurs after both teams realise they have no sidearms & are to tired to bludgeon each other to death with their AT wpns.

British PIAT team : 'Ruddy sods make us haul this damn thing all over expectin us to run all over after a bleedin tank, do they care if this damn thing is heavy, or our round usualy bounces'.

German Panzershrek team: Ya, we get same, Heinz Ami tank up front, Heinz Ami tank behind us, this (holding up schrek) & the ammo is heavy'.

Then both teams agree they realy get no respect, and brew up some tea mixed with some

schnapps.......

Regards, John Waters

--------

"Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!!".

[David Aitken]

I think AT teams are an abstraction, as are many things in CM. In reality it would probably be your platoon members carrying the Bazookas/Panzerfausts/PIATs, rather than there being men devoted solely to these weapons - but for the purposes of gameplay they were made separate teams.

The most realistic use would probably be to tag them along with platoons - if you have teams of any kind in the front line, they should really have protection by other riflemen.

Not referring specifically to you, Gentleman, but how often do I see posts for people asking for this and that, when a bit of lateral thinking would solve the problem? If you think there's a problem in the game, try solving it with tactics first, instead of asking for it to be reprogrammed.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Fionn]

David,

Check you 1944 British, UK and German TO&Es. They DID assign men specifically to carry PIATs around. The basic idea was that out of a 36 man platoon you'd have roughly 34 be rifle carrying infantry and 2 would be chosen to luck the bazooka or the PIAT etc.

Exact numbers varied of course but the PIAT team integral to each infantry platoon was a feature of the British Army well into the 1950s.

David I think you just might be coming down on newbies a bit too quickly. Gentleman has been nothing but polite in the posts I've seen from him. Others definitely deserve some exposure to your attitude but he isn't one of these IMO.

[Gentleman]

Thanks for the answers and I do apologise if people think that Im hassling BTS for this and that. Although I can only add in my defence I don't know anything concerning military matters only what seen from from films and playing the Close Combat games where they represent piats etc with 2 men.

I would like to think that my blatant ignorance of this subject shows what a good game CM is that non genre people can enjoy (and admire) the game.

I must admit you chaps sure know you're stuff here and from reading your posts you can learn alot.

Thanks again for everyones help.

Johns idea for "tea party" would be even better if the Americans could join in too as they could provide much needed suguar, after all it was rationed.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

David,

Check you 1944 British, UK and German TO&Es. They DID assign men specifically to carry PIATs around. The basic idea was that out of a 36 man platoon you'd have roughly 34 be rifle carrying infantry and 2 would be chosen to luck the bazooka or the PIAT etc.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans had PIATs in their 1944 TO&E?

(Just kidding, Fionn; not often you trip yourself up and I just couldn't resist )

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Jeff Heidman]

David, I think you are correct to an extent, but I also think you go to the other extreme, i.e. you are too quick to assume that every problem has, or should have, a tactical solution.

CM spends a LOT of time touting how realistic it is. Indeed, that is what most people like about it. I know it is one of the things I like about it.

So when my AT team apparently has no ability at all to defend itself from a man wielding a banana (2 cents to whoever catches the reference first), I tend to think it is a failing in the system, not a failing in myself. Now, it might be a small, or even inconsequential failing, but it is a failing nonetheless. All the tactical thinking in the world is not going to get around the fact that when two AT teams bump into each other, it is kind of silly for them to start slinging zook or schreck rounds at each other from a range of 10 ft.

If AT teams are meant to be an abstraction of integral squad weapons, then they should have just put the men into the squad with the weapon, the way they do with Panzerfausts. But, as Fionn pointed out, that is not the case. In all armies, dedicated AT teams existed and where not integrated into the squad generally. This is not an abstraction.

Jeff Heidman

[David Aitken]

Fionn wrote:

> Check you 1944 British, UK and German TO&Es. They DID assign men specifically to carry PIATs around.

Either way, an AT team isn't often going to find itself in direct contact with the enemy without support. If they're riflemen, they'll have their own small arms - and if they're devoted team members, they'll be tagging along with their platoon.

> David I think you just might be coming down on newbies a bit too quickly. Gentleman has been nothing but polite in the posts I've seen from him.

My post wasn't a flame, it was a suggestion - and I specifically excluded Gentleman from my complaint about certain people.

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> you are too quick to assume that every problem has, or should have, a tactical solution. [...] when my AT team apparently has no ability at all to defend itself from a man wielding a banana [...] I tend to think it is a failing in the system, not a failing in myself. Now, it might be a small, or even inconsequential failing, but it is a failing nonetheless.

Read the disclaimer at the start of the manual (yes I know you probably have). If you started worrying about small and inconsequential failings, the game would infuriate you. It's not going to be 100% realistic, and it never will.

The fact is, the unarmed AT team issue has a simple tactical remedy - protect them with riflemen. This isn't unrealistic, and it doesn't require reprogramming.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Fionn]

Ah, the bane of my life.. Willful misinterpretation.

Anyways, I think it obvious I was only using the PIATS etc as examples.... OTOH if any newbies ask we'll tell them that the PIAT was a German weapon which the Brits captured and put into use . That ought to confuse the living s**t out of them .

Now, having been embarassed by Intelweenie I think it only fair that I crush him in an AARised PBEM.

So, if you wish to feel more in touch with your Russian side ( as in, heavy casualties, no hope and a merciless enemy) drop me a line. I'll fit your destruction in after tea before some of my favourite shows come on TV .

[Mannheim Tanker]

Fionn: Three words, "UK is British"

Sorry, I couldn't resist after my Goff in the tank thread earlier today!

[Abbott]

Tables of organization are only part of the issue. Put yourself or any thinking man in the position of a platoon Anti-tank team. Would you only carry your AT weapon into battle? I certainly would not. As was said by one of the greatest soldiers who ever lived, Clint Eastwood

Gene Hackman “You just shot an unarmed man!!!”

Clint Eastwood “The boy should have armed himself”

On the serious side as an example, my father fought in the New Guinea campaigns in the south Pacific. He was issued a Garand rifle. He said “I swapped my Garand for an M-1 carbine, used it for a few weeks and didn’t like it. Then I swapped the M-1 for a Thompson, it was just crap but sold well. Sold the SMG sent some money home and bought a bolt action 30-06 off an Aussie buddy. Used it for over a year. One of the best rifles I ever owned". Yes he was in a combat outfit.

Many, many items are traded, swapped, stolen, loaned and bought amongst soldiers in the field. ToO&E’s be damned supply yourself with the items needed to survive with whatever means available. After all isn’t a soldier a terrible thing to waste?

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 08-22-2000).]

[PatAWilson]

Jeff:

"So when my AT team apparently has no ability at all to defend itself from a man wielding a banana (2 cents to whoever catches the reference first)"

How do you defend yourself from a man wielding a raspberry?

Can we do pointed sticks next?

[MikeJ]

darn, beat me by 5 mins Pat! Enjoy your reward (just hope it isn't a huge weight dropped on your head)

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PatAWilson:

Jeff:

"So when my AT team apparently has no ability at all to defend itself from a man wielding a banana (2 cents to whoever catches the reference first)"

How do you defend yourself from a man wielding a raspberry?

Can we do pointed sticks next?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sod that for a lark, Wilson didn't identify the sourdce. Monty Python sketch on how to defend yourself from someone armed with a piece of fruit. I win.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Chuckd]

Come on! None of you have got it yet! Yes, it is Monty Python, but what was the flick?

"And Now for Something Completely Different"

That pair of shiny new pennies is clearly mine.

Chuckd

[Hamstersss]

I've seen what appears to be a bazooka team engage an enemy crew in HtoH combat, killing a member of the crew and running it off. I can send the PBEM movie, if you'd like.

[GIJim]

I'm currently in a PBEM game where I have the same situation as the original poster. My opponent ran a bazooka team up on a tank and deposited him in the rear of my position, losing 1 man of the team. I sent a 'schrek team to hunt down the tank and the two AT teams ended up occuping the same building, 1 meter apart. I have 2 guys, he has 1 and they have both just been sitting there for a couple of turns now. Arming them with pistols like vehicle crew would at least allow for a resolution to the immediate situation.

Just my 2 cents

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

A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.

George S. Patton

[This message has been edited by GIJim (edited 08-22-2000).]

[Guest Rollstoy]

Next time I need some distraction I will set up a huge battle of hundreds of German Panzerschreck teams against hundreds of Bazooka teams. That should really ease the mind. So peaceful ...

[Lorak]

you guys must be all be peace loving..

I had the same thing happen. a bazooka team and a shreck team both thinking this light building by the road would be a good hiding place.

My case my be a fluke....

But I targeted the bazooka team (after 2 turns like this) and my shreck fired.

end result: Bazooka team eliminated. House on fire one member of sheck team down upon firing, second member cut down by american squad as he ran from the burning house.

guess it ended in a draw either way...

Lorak

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

Proud commander of the CCT's Chinchilla Commando Teams

[Guest Michael emrys]

ISTR that the loader in a bazooka team carried at least a carbine and the launcher guy usually had a pistol. Don't know what the skinny is on other nationalities, but it's probably similar.

BTW, same kind of thing in heavy or medium MG teams. A couple guys to carry the gun/tripod, the rest to carry ammo. All the ammo carriers had either a rifle or carbine across their backs and a can of ammo in each hand. Gunner and loader/asst. gunner each had a pistol.

Same in mortar teams.

Point is, soldiers in the firing line nearly *always* had some kind of personal weapon for self-protection, not that they were expected to carry out assaults with them.

Michael

[Schrullenhaft]

My personal preference would be to arm the AT/Mortar/Crewed Weapon teams with some sort of light firearm (appropriate for the nationality) and give them a low ammo count (5 to 10) to simulate the likelihood that they wouldn't be packing much secondary weapon ammo and so that they wouldn't be used/abused as in the manner of better equipped line infantry.

I'm sure BTS doesn't want to make such changes to CMBO (if at all), but it would be nice for consideration for CM2.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Fionn: Three words, "UK is British"

Sorry, I couldn't resist after my Goff in the tank thread earlier today!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhh - the Irish Guards, the Royal Ulster Rifles and some others are on their way to your house now. You've done it. 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' (Northern Ireland is still fondly referred to as 'The Province' here, while Wales and Scotland are countries) is the official title. Britain refers to England, Scotland and Wales. If someone gets nitpicky, I can always up them one!

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

Andreas

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

My personal preference would be to arm the AT/Mortar/Crewed Weapon teams with some sort of light firearm (appropriate for the nationality) and give them a low ammo count (5 to 10) to simulate the likelihood that they wouldn't be packing much secondary weapon ammo and so that they wouldn't be used/abused as in the manner of better equipped line infantry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There you go. That would work. There is already a low ammo provision in the game. When, say, a squad hits 0 ammo, they aren't actually totally out. They're just so low that they won't fire except in self-defense. And that's what you would want to give your teams.

Michael

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

My personal preference would be to arm the AT/Mortar/Crewed Weapon teams with some sort of light firearm (appropriate for the nationality) and give them a low ammo count (5 to 10) to simulate the likelihood that they wouldn't be packing much secondary weapon ammo and so that they wouldn't be used/abused as in the manner of better equipped line infantry.

I'm sure BTS doesn't want to make such changes to CMBO (if at all), but it would be nice for consideration for CM2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, I rather like this idea, maybe with a few more limitations thrown in, but it kind of appeals to me. I really haven't weighed in on these team/crew weapons debates much, and I don't have a lot of problems with most crews going to 'pistols' to reflect their very limited usefulness, but this has a certain ring to it. I do wonder sometimes about LWAT teams, who usually fought forward with rifle squads, having no ability to defend themselves. I understand David Aitkin's point about using tactics to 'cover' them, but David, I have to say, there are many times in battles I've been in where these teams have to be right there in the middle of things, and there's no one to cover them because they're already busy. Generally, with mortars, they're a bit behind the action, and I have no problem with the idea that they should strive not to be swept into the fight. But most bazooka/schreck/piat teams simply don't have this luxury. Still, all in all, I think the game works as is, and this isn't necessarily something that needs recoding or immediate attention.

Sorry, forgot to add that one of the problems with this that I see is modeling correct behaviour in the LWAT team. After all, if they have two distinct functions, infantry squad weapons users, and Tank killing pros, then which, when in the middle of a brouhaha, would they use. I know if my Piat team decided to forego a shot at a passing Mark IV to use their personal arms against a group of rifleman, I'd have them clubbed, skinned and distributed as sandwich meat. So I suppose the easiest would be modeling them with personal arms only after they'd reached the 'empty' stage, at which point, they become spectators.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 08-22-2000).]

[Von Brizee]

And sometimes I like to keep them forward to ambush tanks and then pull them back. Like drive em up in a Jeep in a Meeting Engagement and ambush enemy vehicles that get too bold. And I have seen the AI send vehicle crew into the nearest cover when the tank blows, and that is sometimes right near my AT team! Just happened in a QB the other day. My PBEM opponent drove a regular Greyhound by itself near a lone schreck. The GReyhound bails without even being fired at and then kill the schreck team!