Bertram Posted July 29, 2000 Share Posted July 29, 2000 During a quick battle aganst the AI last night I ran into a TacAI problem regarding tanks versus infantery. In this game I was, as US, defending. My troops consisted, for the relevant part, of infantery with a M5A1 Stuart as support. There was a snow cover on the ground, visibility was good. The infantery was dug in in a line in the centre, the Stuart was guarding the left flank. Terrain was woods in the centre (with my infantery), open on the left flank, with a victory flag in the middle and in the left corner behind my lines in some woods. The enemy appeared to consist of some halftracks, arty and lots of infantery. The halftracks got killed by the Stuart, so the infantery was left. The AI suppressed my troops by arty, and charged all his infantery across the open field on my left flank, to get to the victory flag there. To do this they had to cross the field of fire of that Stuart. Now comes the problem: the Stuart refused to use his main gun on that infantery. The Stuart was buttoned up by that time (range was about 250 mtr, and there were at least 20 infantery squads, HQ, AT-teams, mg's and flamethrowers charging across the field). The Stuart saw the infantery fine, and even chose the logical targets (running infantery, close before distant, AT teams before 'plain' infantery) but engaged them only with his MG. He usually would target a unit until it hit the deck (often without casualties) and then target the next one. As there were just to many enemy units the first would be running again before the tank had stopped all the other ones. This slowed the advance down, but didn't really hurt the enemy. So after three turns (during which I had to back up to keep a save distance) I ordered the tank to target a specific unit, and when asked gave order to use the main gun. The next turn the Stuart proceeded to blast this unit, keeping it targeted even after it broke and ran, until it was totally destroyed. It did use the main gun. Unfortunatly this gave the other units the change to advance unhindered, so I was forced to let the TacAI pick its own targets the next turn. It, once again, only used the MG. So I was stuck with either blasting one unit the entire turn, giving the others the opportunity to advance unopposed, or letting the TacAI choose targets, using only the mg. This in effect did slow down the advance, but didn't kill any enemies. At the end of the game the infantery had passed the Stuart, almost without casualties, and the Stuart hadn't used his main gun, apart from the turn I told him to concentrate on one target, and once on an infanterist who was stupid enough to consider a wooden building saver than the open. Now if that Stuart had been a TD, with only 10 HE rounds this would have been acceptable, as I can understand that the TC would have wanted to save those shells for a special occasion. But this was a Stuart, and it had 85 (or 86?) HE shells to start with. At games end it stil had 76 HE shells left. It had caused only 14 infantery casualties, among those the 8 I forced it to use its main gun on. And this while during 12 turns about 100 infanterist in the open sat (and ran) at about 250 mtrs. So, to finish: I think the TacAI should be tweaked so that tanks with plenty HE should use this more often on infantery in the open. Bertram [This message has been edited by Bertram (edited 07-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted July 29, 2000 Share Posted July 29, 2000 After reading your post I would tend to agree, but there may be more issues than just what lies on the surface. As I understand it, if infantry are moving across a tank's field of fire, that tank will be less likely to use its main gun than if the targets were moving towards or away from the tank, simply because it's harder to hit a target moving across your field of vision. Since there were many targets available, the TacAI might have just decided to strafe the area with MG fire, which seems consistent with your description. But, to be honest, I am puzzled. Can BTS or any CM experts put a word in here? -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. W W Posted July 29, 2000 Share Posted July 29, 2000 Admittedly, I am not real knowledgeable about these things, but it occurs to me that machine gun fire vs. infantry is a more effective use of the tank's firepower. The main gun is more useful vs. a relatively stationary target or, as you said, in a direct attack against a single target. But that would seem to be a slight misuse of the tank's capabilities, especially under the circumstances. Was the tank supported at all? Maybe just a 1919 or something to give it a little extra punch vs. a large group of infantry could have made a difference. A single light tank would be very hard pressed to deal with moving, small tagets all by itself, and the main gun would probably not have been very useful at that point. Once the advancing infantry had begun to dig in, however, the main gun would have been a serious problem for them, as they would be realatively stationary and an easy target. Whenever I use tanks in defensive positions I try to keep a machinegun or two in close proximity to get the bad guys to hit the deck. Then my main gun is devestating. Also I would have a 60 mm mortar crew standing by, as the angle of attack from a dropping mortar is even more lethal than a main gun. I guess the key is support, for me anyway. Hope this helps. Peace...but only in the real world.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertram Posted July 29, 2000 Author Share Posted July 29, 2000 First the situation: the infantery was about 250 mtrs to the front of the tank, and 50 mtrs to the left, and running to a spot 50 mtrs left of the tank. So, while they were not running straight at the tank, they were also not crosswise on its field of fire. Second: as to efficiency and use of weapons. I can buy that it is (to) difficult to hit moving troops with the main gun (although the tank could do it if I specifically ordered it), but even if the troops hit the deck the tank only fired the mg. The mg by the way that hardly killed any troops at all (even post 1.03 patch).(Not surprising really, with the tank buttoned up). No, it felt more like 'Oh, infantery in the open, those we can have with our MG, don't spend those expensive HE rounds on them'. It might even be a correct tactic with just a few squads or when low on HE. But in this case it was 'pence wise and pound foolish'. I certainly think I would be firing HE at anything that moved if I was a tank commander being swamped with infantery and having plenty HE, even if the chances of hitting anything were remote (but then again, I never even have been in the army in real live). Bertram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted July 29, 2000 Share Posted July 29, 2000 One thing to remember, the Stuart only has a 37mm tank gun, not very effective against infantry even with HE. I don't know if BTS has included canister rounds for the 37mm gun. If it has not then machine gun fire is the most effecive weapon against infantry. Wayne. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted July 29, 2000 Share Posted July 29, 2000 As a former tanker (M1A1), I can tell you that we were trained to use MG's on infantry because they're more effective at suppressing them than the main gun. While, I'm not sure if this was the case in WWII, I would suspect that it was. The obvious exception, as stated above, is to use the main gun against stationary, fortified targets (eg troops in a building or bunker). I know that in Vietnam, tankers used flechette rounds, often called beehive rounds, that threw a cloud of metal darts into the enemy. Does anyone know if these were used in WWII? American tanks no longer use them; I believe it has something to do with the Geneva Convention. I guess a 120mm HEAT round was deemed more humane than a beehive Just my $.02... EDIT: Doh! Had to reword my last sentence 'cause I'm thinking faster than I'm typing! [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 07-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertram Posted July 29, 2000 Author Share Posted July 29, 2000 Well, I guess that setles it then. Still would like to have the TC use that main gun though (grumble). Bertram [This message has been edited by Bertram (edited 07-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: I know that in Vietnam, tankers used flechette rounds, often called beehive rounds, that threw a cloud of metal darts into the enemy. Does anyone know if these were used in WWII?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, it was called cannister, but I believe (someone may correct me) that instead of flechettes, it used steel ball bearings. The 37mm gun of the Stuart was one of the first to be so equipped and the round was used extensively in the Pacific against the Japanese, but I believe only rarely in the ETO. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOCHEN PEIPER Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Explain to me why, when my Panther fires at infanty who are in the open, they just stood there as the blast engulfed them... It literally exploded where they were standing and nothing happened to them... They didnt take cover nor did they sustain casualties. ------------------ Quote. If you see a white plane it's American, if you see a black plane it's the RAF. If you see no planes at all it's the Luftwaffe." ---German soldier on the Western Front, 1944. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muzzlehead Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 [ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: I know that in Vietnam, tankers used flechette rounds, often called beehive rounds, that threw a cloud of metal darts into the enemy. Does anyone know if these were used in WWII? American tanks no longer use them; I believe it has something to do with the Geneva Convention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Having fought in a post-Vietnam conflict I can assure you the Beehive round is alive and well. I was Arty and we had both 105 & 155 bee hive rounds in position for close battery defense. Granted we found the 105 guns and beehive rounds on the battlefield after we advanced into a position occupied by Iraqis. Perhaps they were Americans in disguise; because we were later informed that 'No American' weapon systems had been employed by the Iraqis . Canister Rounds as alluded to in previous posts were sort of a cross between a dpicm and a bee-hive. It was a slew of large pellets packed into a shell casing. The round was employed more often in the Pacific due to vegetation issues. It was designed to engage "soft" targets at short range and could strip trees bare. More or less it turned the cannon into a giant shotgun. As for weapons being banned by the GC that is a joke. I do not mean that as a stab at Mannheim Tanker but more at the notion of the GC. The 50 cal has been declared off limits by the GC in engaging organic targets. At least this was what I had been informed of in 88 while training with the 50 cal. We were instructed not to shoot enemy troops with the weapon. Equipment was the only target that could be engaged by the weapon. We were then promptly instructed to only fire at flak jackets, canteens and helmets if troops were present in the field of fire. At that point we moved on in training to the Mark 19 a 40mm auto grenade launcher (a much newer weapon that is also off limits for organic targets) . Later, Muzzlehead [This message has been edited by muzzlehead (edited 07-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 So if the enemy stripped naked, they were safe from your .50 cal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JOCHEN PEIPER: Explain to me why, when my Panther fires at infanty who are in the open, they just stood there as the blast engulfed them... It literally exploded where they were standing and nothing happened to them... They didnt take cover nor did they sustain casualties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Remember, the position of infantry units is an abstraction, and "open ground" tiles aren't really completely flat. I would interpret what you describe as the shell going off near the squad, but inflicting no casualties. Maybe the men were in a small ditch or depression, maybe the round detonated on the far side of a big rock. Keep firing; you'll get them eventually. ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Oh, and Bertram .... it's "infantry," not "infantery." Normally I wouldn't say anything, but seeing "infantery" makes me think of a baby-making factory. [insert mental image here.] ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Muzzelhead: I took no offense at your stab at the GC. In fact, my post was in fact joking about it as well (I even included a smiley to make sure I was understood - but I guess I failed!). To be accurate, we were told that using the main gun against infantry with any type of round was against the GC - but we could aim at their equipment, as you pointed out I was unaware of the fact that American arty still uses a beehive-type round, but I can verify that there is no standard anti-personnel round for the 120mm smoothbore in the American inventory (at least not part of our standard load). Could there be a technical reason for this, perhaps? More likely, I think it might be because the M1Ax can only carry 40 rounds, and the powers that be preferred we save the main gun for vehicles and use the coax on the crunchies... Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Just confirming that the Stuart Crew did the right thing by engaging the enemy infantry with it's MGs instead of it's greatly LESS effective 37mm pop gun. And regarding the explosion right on the infantry, yes the graphical represenattions are seperate from the actual calculation. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 Where do cluster bombs come into this? Is a cluster bomb the airborne equivalent of a beehive round? Obviously darts would be different, but where you're talking about ball bearings, that sounds like a cluster bomb. I might point out that such weapons have been used for a long time - the Scots at Culloden were decimated by English 'grapeshot', which was basically any old metal bits and pieces fired from a cannon. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where do cluster bombs come into this? Is a cluster bomb the airborne equivalent of a beehive round? Obviously darts would be different, but where you're talking about ball bearings, that sounds like a cluster bomb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A cluster bomb consists of a dispenser, that, when dropped, releases several hundred "bomblets." The dispersal pattern, IIRC, depends on altitude and the type of dispenser. IIRC, most spin in the air to achieve a greater spread. Each bomblet has the capability of destroying "soft" targets such as light vehicles, most air defense stations, and exposed infantry. I think it takes more than one bomblet to knock out a tank. One bomblet can, IIRC, kill a man from thirty yards away. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 I recall an air force representative describing the bomblets in a cluster bomb as being roughly equivalent in power to an oversized handgrenade. The lethal range for men in the open would be right on then, M2K. Nasty, nasty things! Gotta love 'em...if you're the one dropping them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grognerd_Fogman Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k: A cluster bomb consists of a dispenser, that, when dropped, releases several hundred "bomblets." The dispersal pattern, IIRC, depends on altitude and the type of dispenser. IIRC, most spin in the air to achieve a greater spread. Each bomblet has the capability of destroying "soft" targets such as light vehicles, most air defense stations, and exposed infantry. I think it takes more than one bomblet to knock out a tank. One bomblet can, IIRC, kill a man from thirty yards away. -Andrew <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heya there Mirage, I keep seeing IIRC, can ya tell me what it stands for? ------------------ Thanks for Athskin! Grognerd_Fogman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Heya there Mirage, I keep seeing IIRC, can ya tell me what it stands for?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC = If I Recall Correctly. I guess I overused it a little in that last post. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I recall an air force representative describing the bomblets in a cluster bomb as being roughly equivalent in power to an oversized handgrenade. The lethal range for men in the open would be right on then, M2K. Nasty, nasty things! Gotta love 'em...if you're the one dropping them <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "right on then." Did you mean "right on them"? Or like, "Right on, M2K!" Hehe. That "thirty yards" should have said "thirty feet," actually. Or I could be completely wrong anyway. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! [This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 07-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 M2K: I meant it as in "You da man, bubba!" Having seen hand grenades go off in person, I'd certainly believe 30 yards too! I always laugh at how people can duck them in the movies (most action movies, anyway). The German "potato mashers" were a lot more underpowered than American grenades, however... Boy is THIS getting OT! Sorry Bertam... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 A similar nasty of recent times for artillery is ICM ammo. I presently forget the meaning of the acronym (somebody's correction please?), but it's along the lines of cluster munitions in performance. One of the tutorial scenarios available for the Steel Beasts demo is where in your role as tank commander (TC) of an M1, you are also calling in artillery onto a road-bound enemy convoy. I selected ICM from the 155mm battery available, and set the spread pattern so as to stretch lengthwise along the road as much as possible. Sure enough, as the enemy "mech" convoy (tanks & IFV's) came through, the ICM shells burst about 100 feet above them and rained down the ICM bomblets to burst on the ground like so many oversized firecrackers. It was actually horrifying to watch, in a way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A similar nasty of recent times for artillery is ICM ammo. I presently forget the meaning of the acronym (somebody's correction please?), but it's along the lines of cluster munitions in performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ICM? My totally random guess would be Incendiery Cluster Munitions. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aaronb Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k: ICM? My totally random guess would be Incendiery Cluster Munitions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Improved Conventional Munitions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorderBill Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 IIRC the casualty radius for modern hand grenades is listed as 5 meters(around 20 feet) having been on many grenade ranges I can tell you the average soldier can't even throw one 30 yards. The WW2 pineapple grenade had less fragmentation effect than modern grenades and would have been slightly less effective in the open. JP as far as your panther's HE not having much effect on troops in the open, tank HE rounds also don't cause as much fragmentation typically as do rounds designed for antipersonnel purposes (i.e. arty rounds, mortars, etc.). As a couple of the tankers on the board noted tank main gun rounds are generally considered ineffective at suppressing infantry in the open. HE is most effective against fixed positions (i.e. bunkers, buildings, etc.) because of the concussion effect in enclosed areas and its fracturing effect against certain type of materials. Also, many tank HE rounds are HE-AT which are shaped charges that focus the explosion to form a plasma jet that burns through armor. Ok, my turn for a question, in the ammo load out in the unit window when it says 29he, 22ap, etc. does it differentiate between standard HE and HE-AT? I've also seen "hollow c" for some vehicles - I assume this is a HE-AT type round. ------------------ ...But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks, 'Play up! Play up! and play the game!' Vitai Lampada--Sir Henry Newboldt Play the game! Motto of 1st Bn, 50th Infantry, US Army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts