BTS und truppen: Since AFVs can't grind infantry could we...?

[John Kettler]

Could we have some sort of reaction test which, if failed by a unit being in the direct immediate path of an oncoming AFV, would yield something resembling an equivalent result to the AFV's real life crunch and munch? I was thinking in terms of a brief but significant morale drop or some such, a condition likely to make those affected break and run.

I think something like this would nicely illustrate the difference in troop qualities, with the better, more seasoned troops far more likely to stay put and fight, and green troops partridges flushed for the hunter to shoot.

It is my understanding that standing one's ground in the face of an oncoming tank requires a great deal of courage and that special tank weakness education of the infantry pays huge combat dividends. I know the Germans did this for at least a proportion of the troops and that the Russians did this en masse after WW II.

I well remember footage from years ago on such training for the French Foreign Legion. The trainee was required to lie face down on the pavement as an AMX-13 rolled straight at him. When the tread was within touching distance, the trainee was required to touch it, then roll out of the tread path to the outside of the tank as the tank ground by, missing him by inches. Put the wind up me, let me tell you!

The evidence that AFVs did drive over infantry, both accidentally and on purpose,is overwhelming and continues to this day. Nor are infantry casualties from AFVs confined to enemy action. One such tale from my brother in the Armored Cav (Scouts) concerns a Bradley and a soldier at NTC in a sleeping bag. Not pretty!

German tactical doctrine called explicitly for Tiger crews to run over infantry whenever possible, as a means to conserve ammo. Just the other day I read an account of unfortunate Germans in a roadside ditch at Normandy, said Germans forced to choose between death by MG fire or death by crushing. That was in Hastings' OVERLORD. Guy Sajer's THE FORGOTTEN SOLDIER has several segments graphically describing what Russian tanks did to infantry at point blank range.

I know that direct crushing of infantry is out, and that the reason has to do with the abstracted squad nature and disposition of its elements, among others, but I'd like to see whether we might get the same net effect some other reasonable way.

I feel that not only would this restore something to the game that was missing all along, but that it would force more rational

employment of armor with infantry. No longer would we see tanks dashing through deployed infantry formations without any real consequences. Instead, the crunched unit might panic or break, at the very least screwing up the advance and at worst depriving the player of an important asset. Woe betide the player who accidentally drives over a friendly CP!

That's my idea. What do you think?

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited to remove confusion from original post.

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 12-22-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Interesting anecdote regarding the Foreign Legion... =0

I'm not sure that what you suggest is a good idea. In principal it seems reasonable, but in practice I don't think it would work. First off, tanks shouldn't threaten their own infantry. There are situations where you have tanks and infantry advancing, and unavoidably they will sometimes cross each other's path. In the small number of occasions when they converge on the same spot at the same time, we assume the result to be abstracted. The tank will wait for the infantry to pass, or vice versa, or the infantry will go around the tank. The tank may even drive straight through a squad, because the latter occupies a wider area than is apparent from its graphic.

In many circumstances the same would be true of enemy infantry – they will avoid the tank, or simply not be where the graphics lead you to believe they are. Even if they go right under the tank, they will not necessarily be harmed. For these reasons I would rule out the running over of moving infantry – I don't think it would happen often enough to merit modelling.

Static infantry is another matter. If a squad is taking suppression fire, and is simultaneously rolled by a tank, it is quite likely that they would be unable to avoid both at the same time. I think under these circumstances only would it be reasonable for them to be run over – but this would be very difficult to model.

Another possibility springs to mind. What if a squad, when rolled by an enemy tank (or maybe even a friendly tank), is forced to move? This would simulate their need to avoid the tank, regardless of incoming fire. Wait a second, isn't this modelled already?

[M Hofbauer]

I think that this is an interesting idea. It might compensate a little for the lack of direct contact between vehicles and infantry. Even though I agree a bit with Mr Aitken and I would suggest to limit this moral-crushing / displacement / injury effect to enemy infantry for ease of things...

btw,

"The evidence that AFVs did drive over infantry, both accidentally and on purpose, independent of whether friendly or not, is overwhelming and continues to this day."

- I would like to see evidence for "on purpose, independant of whether friendly nor not" )

[Guest wwb_99]

Point of fact: Armor does run over squishies in CM. But I do think that there should be some kind of morale check when tanks get real close.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Juju]

Don't forget there already is a reaction from infantry units when AFV's drive past. At least when it comes to friendly vehicles.

Try it. Make a map, place a string of infantry units and have some (friendly) tanks cross this line (I used a fast-move order). you'll notice that some of the units closest to the oncoming vehicles will actually move out of the way. Don't know if this works by daylight since I have only seen this in night battles. I also don't know if there are also morale penalties involved.

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

I prefer an enemy who's willing to die for his country. That way both him and me have the same aim in mind.

[Doug Beman]

David,

I'm pretty sure that John was implying, but not stating, that this morale penalty thing would only apply to infantry in close proximity to enemy tanks.

DjB

[MikeT]

I agree with JuJu about the affect of armor on infantry. I had a dug in USA inf squad at a bridge I had to take over. I assualted them with a Stug that was unarmed and watch as the squad ran to home as the Stug ran over the foxhole.

It does seem that inf is somewhat afraid as armor.

MikeT

[John Kettler]

MikeT,

I haven't noticed it in my games. Perhaps it's because armor which gets close to my infantry tends to die--before it can drive over foxholes.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps it's because armor which gets close to my infantry tends to die--before it can drive over foxholes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh! Is this a taunt directed at me!?!

Well then, I'll respond by asking a simple question:

What's the point of driving over a foxhole when the occupants are:

a)Hightailing it off the map in search of cover and a clean pair of underwear, or...

b)small bits of flesh and bone, still smoldering from the last encounter with a 95mm shell.

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

Frag Hanoi Jane

[John Kettler]

Kingfish! Kingfish! Why so insecure?

The statement was general in nature. For the record, I have played CM against both the AI and other opponents, to include my roommate, several friends, even my nephew. You are beyond doubt the person with whom I've played the most games, though. I simply haven't seen anyone drive over a foxhole so far.

I do agree that at squad level a British CS tank with a 95mm gun verges on being a superweapon. Anything that can shatter a dug-in squad with one shot is gross in my book.

Regards,

John Kettler