SPW 251/1 leading the way

[grunto2]

Has anyone played a scenario with motorized infantry on the battalion level?

In a big scenario, if you can suppress the enemy AT threats, the SPW 251/1s can act as a sort of 'shock force' and lead the attack.

If there is an ongoing AT threat, the SPW 251/1s can used bounding overwatch.

I like to keep the 251/1s out in front of everything. They're a bit expensive but in a scenario where you're giving 20 or 30 of them or whatever, they can be potent if they get the right matchups.

If I'm fighting close in a city, I'll send the SPW 251/1s in first to see if they can draw AT fire. Then come the infantry, and after that the other armor. The infantry is probably only about 20 meters behind the 251/1s and the heavier armor is probably just behind the infantry. For some reason it just seems natural to lead with the 251/1.

Sometimes it's easy to get an infantry platoon chewed. If you lose a 251/1 instead of an infantry platoon you save points.

If the 251/1 doesn't get killed, it can use its machinegun in the thick of the town or city fight, while the friendly infantry and tanks close up behind it.

One drawback is the relatively low ammo; only 57.

Once a 251/1 runs out of ammo, you can use it as transport on a large battlefield.

The U.S. halftracks really 'rock' in the roles mentioned above.

Andy

[Terence]

Originally posted by grunto2:

In a big scenario, if you can suppress the enemy AT threats, the SPW 251/1s can act as a sort of 'shock force' and lead the attack.

...

If I'm fighting close in a city, I'll send the SPW 251/1s in first to see if they can draw AT fire.

...

Sometimes it's easy to get an infantry platoon chewed. If you lose a 251/1 instead of an infantry platoon you save points.

If the 251/1 doesn't get killed, it can use its machinegun in the thick of the town or city fight, while the friendly infantry and tanks close up behind it.

One drawback is the relatively low ammo; only 57.

Andy

I think that some people might be upset if you played them in a PBEM and used your halftrack units to draw fire. Some people might call that "gamey" behavior.

Personally, Ive found that most vehicles have a hard time in towns and cities and I usually try to keep them on the outskirts, looking (and shooting) in.

[Panzer Leader]

What's so gamey about leading a force with half-tracks? That's what the germans did. It's called Armoured Infantry and it is a tenet of combined arms tactics.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

What's so gamey about leading a force with half-tracks? That's what the germans did. It's called Armoured Infantry and it is a tenet of combined arms tactics.

There is a big difference between combined arms tactics with armored infantry and leading with HTs to draw AT fire. Imagine a commander telling a platoon of HTs to "Go out and find where the 6pdrs are"

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

There is a big difference between combined arms tactics with armored infantry and leading with HTs to draw AT fire. Imagine a commander telling a platoon of HTs to "Go out and find where the 6pdrs are"

Wha? Uh... yeah, right.

And what pray tell is the difference if you send your tanks forward, which is NOT considered gamey? There is no difference except you are using your more valuable assets for your initial AT screen then others.

There is nothing gamey about using your HTs in consort with an infantry screen. If your opponent opens up with his AT assests to elininate you HTs that's called *gasp* war. Then your overwatching tanks can eliminate the AT assets.

This IS different then sending lone HTs rushing forward to be sacrificed.

Jeff

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

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Croda]

Ya, I thought that was kind of the idea behind Armored Cavalry too. Send someone out to get shot at who has a good chance of surviving the first hit.

[Atlas]

Way too gamey! You have no consideration for those precious virtual HT that will die needlessly for your evil pleasure.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/016638.html

[Terence]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

And what pray tell is the difference if you send your tanks forward which is NOT considered gamey? There is no difference except you are using you more valuable assets for you initial AT screen then others.

There is nothing gamey about using your HTs in consort with an infantry screen. If your opponent opens up with his AT assests to elininate you HTs that's called *gasp* war. Then your overwatching tanks can eliminate the AT assets.

This IS different then sending lone HTs rushing forward to be sacrificed.

Jeff

Well yes you are of course correct. But I _was_ saying that using hts (lone or not) to draw AT fire was gamey. Here's my take on the situation.

For one thing, tank fire, especially when we are talking about several tanks, can take out even entrenched AT guns fairly efficiently. So advancing with tanks means that you have a possible solution to the AT problem at hand. Of course, having the HTs along with the tanks means they can add their mgs to the mix, but the softer skinned HTs are more vulnerable. Personally, I like to peek tanks out first, look around, call in smoke and advance the HTs fast with the tanks providing overwatch as artillery rounds fall on the enemy lines.

But that's just me.

Now, as to what was actually said in the original post:

"If I'm fighting close in a city, I'll send the SPW 251/1s in first to see if they can draw AT fire. Then come the infantry, and after that the other armor. The infantry is probably only about 20 meters behind the 251/1s and the heavier armor is probably just behind the infantry. For some reason it just seems natural to lead with the 251/1."

I think that sending a HT to draw AT fire doing might be called gamey by some.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Atlas:

You have no consideration for those precious virtual HT that will die needlessly for your evil pleasure?

No.

It's thier job.

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

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[retarded_keydet]

Using unimportant units to draw fire is an old concept. That's why we have the term cannon fodder.

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

There was a long silence of rememberance for the dead, to which I added these names:

Ernst Neubach, Lensen, Wiener, Wesreidau, Prinz, Solma, Hoth, Olensheim, Sperlovski, Smellens, Dunde, Kellerman, Freivitch, Ballers, Frosch, Woortenbeck, Siemenlies...

I refuse to add Paula to that list, and I shall never forget the names of Hals, or Lindberg, or Pferham, or Wollers. Their memory lves within me.

There is another man, whom I must forget. He was called Guy Sajer.

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Wha? Uh... yeah, right.

And what pray tell is the difference if you send your tanks forward, which is NOT considered gamey? There is no difference except you are using your more valuable assets for your initial AT screen then others.

The difference is that in "real life" the enemy would hold their fire until your tanks came within range... Something we can not choose to do since the AI controls who you shoot at, and it will target and fire on the first vehicle it sees.

[grunto2]

ok i've got 1500 meters of fields dotted by small wood patches and laced by sunken roads.

my troops have to reach and take the town before the canadian reinforcements do.

the infantry is going to march. due to air attacks i don't have enough halftracks to transport my entire force, so the infantry will be on foot.

even if i did have enough 251/1s, i generally don't like moving across hostile ground with infantry in them.

the infantry have to 'move' because if they 'sneak' they'll both a) get too tired and never reach the town in time before the allied counterattack starts.

in playing the scenario a few times, i realize that my infantry are getting 'chewed' here and there by isolated ambushes out of the farmhouses and copses of trees.

using spw 251/1s on 'point' works better. these vehicles expose ambushes and sometimes can 'take care of' such with just their mg42s.

i would rather lose an spw251/1 than have a platoon shredded to about 30-60% manpower strength.

also, note that in city fighting the spw 251/1s are not alone; there are infantry moving up right behind them, and tanks behind that. i had a choice of leading with infantry, tanks, or spw 251/1s; well the spw 251/1s 'drew point duty.'

i do think that the spw 251/1 is a great 'point man,' particulary when there is a shortage of available infantry - compared to the number of available vehicles - as in panzergrenadier and recon units.

andy

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Terence:

I think that sending a HT to draw AT fire doing might be called gamey by some.

Well, it is all a matter of opinion.

I personally view my tank assets as extremely valuable. For me the prospect of driving 3-4 of my tanks into a 2x 75mm AT gun ambush is foolish at best. I have watched tank after tank die from a well placed AT gun that was NEVER spotted by me until I advanced my infantry close enough.

If you can live with seeing all your tank assets die flaming, quick deaths then please send me a setup for I will enjoy playing you.

But regardless of "what you call gamey" if someone wants to spend the points on HTs just so that they can drive them out into the open and hope that his opponent kills them with his AT assets, then fine with me. For I prefer that to someone who actually uses his support armor in an intelligent manner.

Jeff

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

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[Terence]

Just to clarify:

If someone used lone HTs to sniff around for AT assets of mine in a city, I wouldn't scream: you gamey cheating bastard and refuse to play further.

Au contraire.

I'd just nimbly destroy the halftrack and cackle like a hyena. Gamey or not, driving HTs around in a city waiting for someone to shoot at them is just a good way to lose the halftrack, and aerate the crew.

Finally, I know that HTs are part of the TOE of Panzer Grenadier units and all kinds of other army units. Believe it or not, I'm even aware that they were even used in combat, while live bullets and other nasty exploding things were sent in their direction.

I just thought I'd point out in as mild and friendly a way as possible that using them as bait would be seen as a no-no in some quarters.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Red Dog:

The difference is that in "real life" the enemy would hold their fire until your tanks came within range... Something we can not choose to do since the AI controls who you shoot at, and it will target and fire on the first vehicle it sees.

Wel, then... I suppose the AI should just be smarter.

Besides.. I don't play the AI. I play PBEMs against humans which are smarter (I hope).

So if I am advancing my infantry with 251/1s and 251/9s in a supporting role my human opponent could be *gasp* smart enough to wait for my armor, which is usually behind the initial advance providing overwatch.

Regardless, it's his choice. I am going to keep pushing until he "opens up". There is nothing gamey with this. This is SOP when it comes to a mechanized assault.

Jeff

[Terence]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

If you can live with seeing all your tank assets die flaming, quick deaths then please send me a setup for I will enjoy playing you.

There's a middle ground between feeding your tanks into an AT meat grinder and using halftracks as AT bait. The game puts all kinds of tools at our disposal - artillery, smoke, suppressive fire, etc. You are a very smart guy and I'm sure you realize that, and let me assure you that I do.

Originally posted by jshandorf:

But regardless of "what you call gamey" if someone wants to spend the points on HTs just so that they can drive them out into the open and hope that his opponent kills them with his AT assets, then fine with me.

Agreed. We are on the same page here.

(Although I've never called anyone "gamey" and probably never will. I just mentioned that others might find it so -- as a friendly caution. Aren't we all brothers, after all. )

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Terence:

Aren't we all brothers, after all.

Then send me a set up, Able.

Yours truly,

Cane

[Terence]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Then send me a set up, Able.

Yours truly,

Cane

Didn't Cain kill Abel? What are you trying to say?

(Actually, I have 4 games going now and no room for another one. For now, you'll just have to belive me when I say:

A) I'm not a total idiot

I won't let you set all my tanks on fire.

C) When I have some time freed up, old bean, I will send you a setup and beat you like a rented mule.

[jshandorf]

Okay, listen people, here is the skinny on this.

When you use HTs, ACs, SPs, or whatever in the support of an infantry assault you are basicy saying to your opponent,

"I am am going to assualt with my infantry until I find your infantry. Then when I do my armored support units, in conjunction with my infantry will decimate your infantry. You have two choices to this: 1)Watch it happen. 2) Do something about it."

That "Do" would be to open up with AT assests and/or present you tank/TD forces. Either way, as the attacker I am forcing you to act they way I want you to, therefore I have the advantage.

Now if I go drving my HTs, Tanks, or whatver willy nilly around the board "snooping" for an ambush this a re-active position. That is, I am putting myself into the position the defender wants me to so that he can destroy me. This is BAD for the attacker, since most likely those armored assets will die without me gaining any real advantage or information.

So you see there is a difference in the application. In one application it is historical and VERY useful, and in the other it is stupid and a waste of resources.

Jeff

[Terence]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

There is nothing gamey with this. This is SOP when it comes to a mechanized assault.

Absolutely right. But that is also NOT what the original poster said he did with his HTs -- ie. using them in an urban setting to draw HT fire. You are defending SOP of mech assaults, which are not under scrutiny, and which I imagine nearly everyone agrees with, more or less.

Now I happen to agree with Grunto2, that I'd probably rather lose an HT than have one of my infantry squads smashed. But I think there may be other ways to accomplish effective recon than using a portion of your force as cannon fodder.

[Croda]

Somebody's got to go first.

Not sending an HT because it might get whacked by an AT gun is like not sending infantry because it might get whacked by an Inf gun or platoon sized ambush.

Somebody's got to go first.

I have no problem with leading with an HT. I would much rather find an AT gun by losing an HT than a costly Med to Heavy tank.

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

Woot! - Maximus2k

The New CessPool

[Guest wwb_99]

For a true mechanized assault, don't just use one HT or a platoon of HTs, use a company or more on the advance. Even if an ATG does open up and plink one, 18-20 mgs will put that bad boy down in no time. And may god have mercy on the souls of any infantry which try to stand in their way. Also helpful to have Tanks/TDs/SPGs on overwatch.

WWB

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

For a true mechanized assault, don't just use one HT or a platoon of HTs, use a company or more on the advance. Even if an ATG does open up and plink one, 18-20 mgs will put that bad boy down in no time. And may god have mercy on the souls of any infantry which try to stand in their way. Also helpful to have Tanks/TDs/SPGs on overwatch.

WWB

My point exactly.

Jeff

[Terence]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

My point exactly.

Jeff

Yeah? Take note that your point now has nothing to do with using HTs as bait for AT fire in an urban setting, which is what seemed to start this discussion several posts ago.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Terence:

Yeah? Take note that your point now has nothing to do with using HTs as bait for AT fire in an urban setting, which is what seemed to start this discussion several posts ago.

That is only because in the first post the guy said "draw AT fire". It is a completely valid and historical tactic to send units out to "draw" fire.

I just think most people interpreted this as sending out vehicles to die. On the contrary I stated otherwise.

Anytime you present your troops in the open, whether they are moving to and from cover, ot armored assets that are moving up in a support role they are gonna "draw fire". It may be MG fire, it might be mortar fire, it might be artillery fire, and yes folks, sometimes it's AT fire.

Jeff