Smoke/MG/Tanks/Close Assautl AFV

[coe]

I played chance encounter as Americans and

I was curious about several things.

If I am correct, Sherman and PZIV tanks have

a hull MG, a turret MG (next to the main cannon) and one that can be fired in the

unbuttoned position. So you could have 3

MG's firing at something but I've never seen

it happen.

The other thing is once my Sherman found a

StugIII and the StugIII immediately laid

smoke (how do you get your tanks to do that?)

well, my sherman turned its turret to fire

at infantry that was about 200 m away instead

of trying to fire through the smoke (it had

already fired at the StugIII) or waiting

till the smoke cleared. Instead it turned

its turret to fire at the infantry - the

smoke cleared and the StugIII brewed up

the Sherman.

Also how do you direct infantry to close

assault AFV's? it always seems they stop

a few meters away and start firing? Do you

tell them to attack the AFV or to move on

it?

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the StugIII immediately laid

smoke (how do you get your tanks to do that?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't, at least in the beta demo. You have encountered the dreaded and much-discussed "nahverteidigungswaffe", a mortar-like device fired from some German armor for self-defense, which can fire either smoke or grenade-like charges. Search on the above for many curiously spelled references and discussions.

Control of it is automatic by the AI in our demo. As for the StuG waiting for the smoke to clear, that was one option open to it- the other being to scoot away behind the smoke to a safer location. Your AI was in a gambling mood. I've seen it do both.

American infantry squads don't have much to assault tanks with, but directing them to fire at a nearby tank will cause them to (also) chuck grenades. German squads equipped with Panzerfausts (as noted in their unit information) will also respond to a "fire" command, but in the beta demo AI they weigh infantry targets so heavily that it is very difficult to get them to shoot at a tank (only when no enemy infantry is visible). This has been fixed in the release version, we are told.

I don't think physically moving onto an enemy tank would be very successful. The tac AI is basically balking at this request and stopping short of the vehicle. It may be artificial, but it is intelligent.

[Walt]

I'd have to disagree with you. The most effective antitank weapons infantry has is infantry.

With most tanks having open vision slits the soldiers would fire their weapons into the tank. Sticking a Thompson in a vision slit would clear out a panther or tiger pretty well. The Japanese would use their Katanas (SP?) to impale drivers heads in the pacific. I'm sure you know all this, but I like to hear myself talk.

It's made me angry on occasion that my infantry can't hurt tanks (US infantry). I've been in situations in Chance Encounter where I could have put an infantry squad on one of the STuGs and take it out. I can't! That's very unrealistic. I'm positive that tanks can't "scratch" each others backs with MGs either.

I'm curious about the Shermans MGs too. With one in the hull, one coax, and the .50 on the roof, it should be spitting out 220 firepower at 100m. It could be, but I've not noticed it. Could the hull MG be animated like the gun on the stug? That would be neat. Eventually fully animated MGs would be cool, but that would be far in the future I'm sure.

I have a few more questions concerning the Sherman. Is there going to be some way to simulate the application of sand bags to the hull? More than likely it'd have little impact (bad pun! ) on AP penetration, but if for no other reason than spacing I would think a dramatic impact on HEAT warhead performance would be a result.

Finally, (and concerning more than just the Sherman) will flame-thrower tanks (and other vehicles) be included? There was a POTD on CMHQ featuring a flame-thrower unit, but I haven't seen anything about flame-thrower tanks.

Why don't tank crews, and weapon crews have Thompsons, carbines and grease guns? Inquireing minds want to know.

[Bastables]

Walt,

Infantry leaping upon Panzers and shooting thru gaps in the armour to knock them out? Sounds like something out of the Starship troopers movie to me. Where is you’re proof?

Lets look at Normandy shall we: by the 19 of July 131 Panthers had been lost. The British from the dates 6 June to the 7 August studied 82 of these, 36 were killed by armour piercing shot, 7 by hollow charge projectiles, 7 by artillery HE shells, 6 by aircraft rockets, 2 by cannon fire from aircraft, 6 destroyed by their crew, 3 abandoned and 13 due to unknown causes. Where are the kills from enraged infantry men unloading Magazines into armoured glass vision ports?

Sandbags, well the consensus of the board and more importantly Charles and Steve belief, sandbagging actually increases the lethality of HEAT projectiles. So no sandbags on the Sherman’s in the game.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 03-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 03-05-2000).]

[Aacooper]

Regarding infantry knocking out tanks, I believe the Tiger would be difficult to break into and get the crew, other WW2 AFV's weren't hermetically sealed.

In the CM demo, I forced a situation where I drove the StuG up to the bridge, and I surrounded it with two platoons of US infantry, no bazookas. The StuG Tac AI wanted to back out of trouble, but I kept pushing it back. I can't remember how long it took, but eventually the infantry knocked the StuG out. Before they did that, though, somehow the bridge got destroyed, and when the StuG was destroyed, the two buildings closest to it also fell down. If I had a web site, I'd stick the movie up on it.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Coe's question about roof MGs... they were mostly for AA defense and were not outfitted with much ammo. They will fire, but only at the same target as the coax (or is it the bow, I forget!). The PzIV's roof mounted MG34 was for AA and was generally NOT externally mounted. Check out pics of PzIVs and you will more often than not see no MG on their roofs.

Infantry men physically attacking tanks is something you see in movies, not in the history books. I can think of a few instances of explosives being tossed up on engine decks, or the famous German magnetic AT mines (which were pretty much out of service by 1944), but never heard of a guy putting his Thompson up to a vision slit. Well, Saving Private Ryan, but that gets back to my earlier point about movies And against a Tiger this would mean the rounds coming right back at the guy firing as they had armored glass

As for the sandbags, do a Search on this BBS and you will pull up lots of discussion on it. Application was limited, effects were most likely negative.

Plenty of flame belchers in the final game. Uhmmmm, off the top of my head there is the WASP, Hetzer flamethrower, Sherman Croc, Chruchill Croc, SPW 251/16, and I am sure one or two more.

There was a bug in the Beta Demo that could cause many buildings to be destroyed at once. Yes, infantry are very reluctant to attack tanks. Grenades are pretty much the only weapon to use, and these were fragmentation types, not suitable against fully enclosed armored vehicles (check out a SPW 251 vs. grunts to see a difference). However, we have since added AT rifle grenades for US troops.

Steve

[Walt]

So long as my infantry can do something I'm happy. After all, how could paratroopers without much in the way of ammo hold off so many panzer divisions at Bastogn?

Where's the proof? Well I'll admit I don't have any for THAT theatre, but the Japanese did sworm shermans (not just the suicide troops). I read a book about an M48 commander in Vietnam where he described being swormed By NVA/VC. He used the term back scratching to describe how they'd defend each other by firing M1919s at the aflicted tank. He described several instances where the tank crew had to fight off VC/NVA with submachineguns and rifles. There was even a situation where they lost a commander to an intrepid communist that stuck his SMG into the tank through the hatch and sprayed. He made a mess out of the poor guy.

How else were the NVA units going to take out a tank without anti-tank weapons? They didn't give out a RPG to every soldier. Some times you go with what you've got and pray it works.

It just pisses me off to see an infantry squad run up to a tank and stop a few meters off to fire at it. That's suicide. If you jump up on it there's nothing the tank can do about it (except for those german grenade launchers. Why bother with those if infantry wasn't a concern?).

I would think that the nature of most of the combat on the western front precluded this sort of thing. You can't run across an open field to jump on a tank. You CAN jump out of a window onto a buttoned tank and screw with the sucker, same thing could happen in the jungle. Think of your choices. You can run away and get blasted to the other side by multiple machineguns and the main gun, or you can jump on the thing and stand a chance of survival. It doesn't make sense to run away and place yourself in a more precareous situation where the tank is better able to fire at you. Once you're on the tank it's a matter of time. An incendiary grenade would melt right through some parts, you can try to jam the tracks with something, find weak areas and exploit them, piug up the exhaust system... But of course you're screwed if there's any enemy infantry or vehicles around.

I just think it would be usefull in urbin settings. I've been in a position to try it several times in the demo and been rather disapointed that I couldn't do anything about the tank siting in front of one of my squads. Oh well.

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

So long as my infantry can do something I'm happy. After all, how could paratroopers without much in the way of ammo hold off so many panzer divisions at Bastogn?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The paras actually had the 705th TD Battalion, CCB - 10th Armored, and CCR - 9th Armored in the Bastogne perimeter, so they weren't entirely w/o anti-armor capability. They also made liberal and successful use of bazookas. 57mm AT guns proved less effective at anything more than spitting distance, though. Bastogne was very much a combined arms operation.

Ethan

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

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest Big Time Software]

Walt, in WWII ETO what you described is so rare that in fact I can't think of even one reference to such an action happening. Because of that we aren't going to simulate hopping up onto tanks. Simply wasn't done in the ETO.

Getting up on a tank was near suicide in a combined arms situation as "back scratching" is easy enough to do and highly effective since the infantry on the tank are sitting ducks. And not only is it unwise to jump on top of a tank, but in fact is nearly impossible if it is moving. Hell, even climbing onto a M5 Stuart takes a bit of doing. I did this a few month's back and I used the tracks as a step, which wouldn't be possible if it were moving.

But most of all... do not confuse time periods, theaters, and fighting forces when looking at something like tank killing. There is a huge difference between 1960s fanatical NVA in jungles and 1940s US Grunts in temperate Europe. So different that direct comparisons generally don't have much value.

As for the historical outfitting of US squads, they were largely helpless against armor. Unlike the Germans, who gave squads pleny of means to kill a tank, the US forces felt that this was not something infantry should be expected to do. That was the job of the bazooka, AT gun, and/or Tank Destroyer. The US Army was fairly straight forward in their thinking. Infantry was supposed to kill infantry, not tanks.

Steve

[coe]

Hmmm, I'm puzzled, then in Squad Leader,

what is this thing about moving the infantry

squad in the same hex and close assaulting

the AFV what is exactly happening there?

Are they sticking mines on it, shooting

rifles, tossing grenades, etc.

Also, how do you get infantry in a building

to hide and let a tank pass in the road

adjacent to it, without the infantry firing

at it? This is akin to like hiding below

the window.

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Good! Infantry will have kiling power! (Visions of CC2 are very ugly with that, don't think about it). Brit. Airborne will have Gammon Bombs at Arnhem, right?

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

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[ARCHANGEL]

Somewhat akin and posted elsewhere, last week I had a US rifle Squad attack a Stug. They ran up to it, messed around the tube, and ran off. The next thing I knew the Stug tube was unusable. This was all the AI...

(I was fighting LD as the Germans)...I assumed they had poured a grenade or two down the tube and disabled it.

Whatever they did, it was good to see...

[Guest Big Time Software]

I can't say what the designers of Squad Leader intended close assult to represent, but we have found a decent number of historical flaws in ASL/SL since starting out making Combat Mission.

Close assaulting enemy armor can, and does, work. But it isn't a simple if A than B thing. Check out detailed accounts of combat in the ETO and you will see few instances of close assaulting enclosed armored vehicles. There are reasons for this and that is what CM simulates; inadequate weapons and will power.

The truth of the matter is that close assaulting enclosed armored vehicles with infantry, armed with weapons not specifically designed for killing tanks, is NOT smart. In CM the TacAI simulates this as best it can by making such attacks largely ineffectual. You, the player, are going to have to learn to choose your close assault attacks more wisely EVEN IF THIS MEANS retreating. Happened all the time in WWII, so don't feel bad when it happens to you In other words, think of it like storming a castle. It isn't enough to get to the castle walls, you actually had to get through them. Sheer will power and curse words doesn't get you through any easier

As for hiding, there were several changes made to this since the Beta Demo. If you hide in good cover your guys will try and close assault a tank moving by it *if* they think they have a hope of damaging it AND aren't cowering.

Steve

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Hmmm, I'm puzzled, then in Squad Leader,

what is this thing about moving the infantry

squad in the same hex and close assaulting

the AFV what is exactly happening there?"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coe-

I've been playing SL and ASL for almost 20 years, and I've learned that the key to making sense of some of the rules and concepts is abstraction.

Remember that the original Squad Leader was intended, believe it or not, as a 'beer and pretzels' wargame - emphasis on 'game'. Some of the original basics of relative unit firepower, morale, and things like anti-vehicle close combat were probably not as intensively researched as you might believe. I still think it's become the best tactical game system out there, bar none, and also a great simulation, but the effect is more important than the cause.

So in ASL, *if* your squad passes a morale check, it can CC a vehicle. If it doesn't get machinegunned it can try to roll a 5 or less, not a great chance. If it has a demo charge or ATMM, then it's got a better chance, but still not a great chance.

The lesson you learn from the game, let alone reading about real encounters , is that 20-30 tons of lead-spitting metal is nothing to get too close to unless it's a desparate emergency.

I think that, in those rare occurrences, the CM engine will have your lads try something.

-dale

[This message has been edited by dalem (edited 03-05-2000).]

[Colin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Sheer will power and curse words doesn't get you through any easier <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So thats what I was doing wrong!

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

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[coe]

So if the infantry is hiding, can there

be such a case where vehicles will pass

by it and your infantry won't attack? This

may be desireable especially if you want the

column to pass completely by and then get

stuck in a crossfire in both the back and

front - does this have to be coordinated in

the ambush command? Or perhpas you want to

save your unit, and just want the enemy

to pass by completely unmolested (and of

course not having spotted you)- then how

would you do this without the ambush command?

C.

[coe]

one other thing, so when having an

AFV with a hull machine gun and a turret

machine gun....if the turret is turned, how

does the targeting work - will the turret

machine gun independently seek out different

targets, and the turret machine seek out

the target the main gun is firing at (or

can the turret machine gun target separately

than the main gun (as long as it fires

in the same facing?))

[Fionn]

I've killed many tanks with just infantry assaults. It can be done but it is rare and you usually suffer heavy casualties.

As a rule of thumb I figure that an isolated tank some 200 metres from supporting infantry and 20 metres away from my infantry can be destroyed if I'm willing to send a platoon out to attack it. I should expect at LEAST 50% casualties to that platoon.

So, under the best of circumstances I lose 20 or so men per tank killed.

I found Panzerfausts inestimably more effective. I've racked up dozens of tank kills to fausts in test games. If you really MUST close assault then expect it to be unsuccesful unless the enemy tank is buttoned, unsupported and within a few metres of your infantry.

[Mark IV]

Coe, the turret machine-gun is often called the coaxial machine gun, since it shares roughly the same axis with the main gun. It is usually sighted with the same optics used for the main gun and often fired with the same controls. It can ONLY target, by definition, the same thing the main gun is pointing at, and it traverses and elevates with the same mechanics as the main gun. So, no independent targeting.

[kverdon]

From most of the reading I've done, infantry units w/o any anti tank weapons (AT Gun, Bazooka etc) tended to break for cover or bug out when faced by enemy armor. The squad attacking with a grenade bundle or something like that was VERY rare. CM should model the general rule of units not the rare exception. It would be nice if they could put in a 5% chance (thats probably REAL generous) that you Inf Squad would go Gung Ho and try and disable a AFV by close assualt.

Kevin

[Los]

RE: Firing through vision slits. Most vision slits have what very thick bullet proof glass over them. I have a German tank training film from 1944(Panzer's Marsch: IHF) that shows Panthers defeding against infantry attacks. It's all footage from within the tank and cleary goes over in step by step detail how vision blocks are changed. Now I don't know if the blocks pertain to every vision are but.

Also in a lot of the vision blocks they are actually pericsope in nature so the round could not physically penetrate into the tank anyway.

Also the Panther (at least) has these little tiny metal-cork like plugs around the turret that pop out (and are retained on a chain, which allows the crew to stick the barrel of an SMG out and clear the back deck from enemy. Quite an awesome film, even shows the correct procedure for grinding enemy foxholes...

Los

[Guest Big Time Software]

Correct, the coax MG can only shoot at what the main gun is pointed at and vice versa. The bow (hull) MG is independent.

Coe, there is a chance that your guys won't try and attack the close vehicles if they don't muster up the courage to attack, otherwise they will go for it. One thing you can do is have your men target an Ambush Marker that is further down the path of the enemy column's travel. That way they more than likely will hold their fire until the Ambush Maker is tripped. However, picture perfect ambushes in CM won't likely happen because they rarely happened in real life.

Kevin, this is exactly why close assaulting tanks works so poorly in CM. The game can't prevent you from ordering your men to move close to a tank, but it can (and does) make such moves ineffectual. Therefore the player must LEARN that such attacks aren't wise and avoid voluntarily avoid them in the future.

Los, the Panther was a bit unique in terms of those fireing plugs. However, other German AFVs allowed the MP40 to be stuck out vision slits and fired. Although it isn't know for sure, the general thinking is that the small metal "lip" under the MP40's barrel was put there so the gun wouldn't slip too far out of the vehicle.

Steve

[tss]

I'd have to disagree with you. The most effective antitank weapons infantry has is infantry.

Definitely no. The best antitank weapon that infantry has is a well-concealed AT gun.

You are right in that infantry may stop an attacking tank without any special weapons. In practice, that demands very committed men and bad tank tactics.

Early in Winter War (i.e. in December 1939) Finnish AT teams immobilized some tanks by prying the tracks of with logs or crowbars. Note that this was possible only because:

1) The Soviet tanks were light and their suspension was not too good (tanks of BT-series often threw tracks by itself).

2) The tactics of Soviet tankers were abysmal. They advanced buttoned up in covered terrain without infantry support so that the AT teams could get near the tanks with small risk.

Generally, the AT teams had two members. One would immobilize the tank (with satchell charge, thrown AT mine, or with improvised methods presented above) and the other would finish it with a Molotov coctail. There is a persistant legend that one corporal destroyed one T-26 by jumping on it, knocking on the hatch, and throwing in a hand grenade when a Soviet tanker opened the hatch but I don't know whether this actually happened. There's also one recorded instance when a tank driver was killed with an accurate rifle shot through the vision slit, but this was noted just because it was a unique occurrence.

It should be noted that the losses of the Finnish AT teams were around 70% and just about the only infantry assignment that was more dangerous was to be the point SMG man in a counter-attack. Also, the tactics worked only as long as the tanks advanced without infantry support.

- Tommi

[Walt]

There was a specific occorance that got me worked up on the subject.

I was playing LD as americans and was wining. But The tiger was immobalized just on the edge of the woods, and I couldn't get a shot in with a TD without more than likely loosing a few because of the position of the tiger.

So I snuck up on it with some infantry. That was easy enough as the woods were in between the tank and the squad, and the tank was buttoned and facing the other way any way. I figured that there wasn't anything to stop the infantry from raping on the hatch and leting it be known that the war was going the wrong way for the Nazis (OK, so that's what I'd have done in real life ), Or at least blow the hell outa the thing.

But of course the infantry squad stops and starts chucking grenades, and the Tiger leasurely rotates it's turret and kills eight men before they run off with their tails between their legs. How is that realistic? The tiger should have been taken care of.

I don't expect a squad to run across an open field, jump onto a fully operational tank, go Superman and rip off a hatch and murder the crew. I do expect infantry to take care of an immobile tank without infantry support that won't be able to see them coming.

Maybe it's too dificult to put into the game, or just too rare for the programers to bother, but I've been in situations like this a few times and not been able to do anything about it but loose a tank or two.

P.S. I actually think that Saving Private Ryan was a little odd in the final battle. Why would they try some chancy thing like blowing the tracks off when they had a bazooka? Sure they were low on Ammo, but they could have shot the tank through the roof from a window and run away. If you're going to take the battle literally that would have saved those guys taken out by the 20mm. If all else fails you can go after a working tank with a sock full of TNT, but I would call that plan B (or more like Z).

[Fionn]

Walt,

Historically speaking American infantry were VERY rarely able to "take care" of immobilised, isolated German tanks unless they had bazookas.

What you are having issue with isn't something unrealistic IMO but is due to an unrealistic expectation of infantry effectiveness.

A squad of infantry is going to have a HELL of a time trying to take out even the most weakened of Tigers. If you don't expect this due to Hollywood etc then it might come as a surprise but I think CM has this about right.

Tackling tanks with just close-assaulting infantry is very hard and usually fails, just like it should IMO.