game favors armor way too much

[Flipper]

when in close with infantry against armor the infantry stumble around with club feet get slaughtered I mean they move way too slow while the tanks with there lid shut weave left right an take themselves outta harms way

with ammazing speed killing tanks with infantry while possible is always a crap shoot at best unless the tank walks right up to your position so i guess the tac AI for inf is not to snuff for the armor.

[Michael Dorosh]

irl men against tanks definnety a crap shoot, men scared heap big tank canoon go boom-boom

AI can be intepeted as reailistic portrayal of this - tank big and scary infantryman where only a khaki shirt for armor AI pretty good as far as me concern

[Check6]

Flipper, if you're serious, let's play a PBEM. I'll take infantry; you take armor. We'll see what happens.

[Skipper]

In real life, infantry without AT weapons support did not have a lot of chances against tanks either. To quote a veteran WWII grunt, who survived seven tank attacks himself and obviously discussed it a lot with fellow soldiers, if attacking infantry had tanks and you had no AT gun (or AT rifle, at least) around, you were caput - whether you stay or run. If you had even a couple of sorokapyatkas, you could normally hold. Something like that. The chances to kill a tank with grenades, molotovs and other such tricks were rare and were only occurring by mistake of the tank crew. At the moment a nearby infantryman had to act immediately, in the knowledge that his chances for success are quite slim, and for survival - even worse than that.

It's not like you land a limonka on a roof and the tank explodes in flames. Far from that.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Skipper:

In real life, infantry without AT weapons support did not have a lot of chances against tanks either. To quote a veteran WWII grunt, who survived seven tank attacks himself and obviously discussed it a lot with fellow soldiers, if attacking infantry had tanks and you had no AT gun (or AT rifle, at least) around, you were caput.

Unless you were German. Even up against the T-34 in 1941, they were pretty ingenious as finding ways to combat tanks.

There was a neat picture in Squadron-Signal's Waffen SS in Action of a StuG crewman - they encountered a T-34 and found their cannon unable to penetrate the armor, so one of the crewman had to run up to the thing and set it on fire with, if memory serves, petrol. I believe the photo is of him laying wounded. I've quote Buchner in another thread about the training they received (that doesn't mean they actually used that training, or were able to, but Buchner mentions using hand grenades against T-34s - surely a desperate measure). But the point is that German troops were trained not to be afraid of enemy armour. I'd love to hear from those who know anything specific from their point of view. I am sure Allied troops of all nations were pretty shy when it came to tanks. Even the PIAT was not trusted in its first months of operational use because of faulty ammunition.

The Germans employed a variety of weapons in addition to just molotovs and grenades, such as Teller mines. I knew a vet who had three tank destruction badges - I asked him "panzerfaust"? He replied "no - Tellermine." Brave men!

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...But the point is that German troops were trained not to be afraid of enemy armour

...I am sure Allied troops of all nations were pretty shy when it came to tanks

"Deutschland über den Verbündeten" anyone?

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

irl men against tanks definnety a crap shoot, men scared heap big tank canoon go boom-boom

ROFL - Michael, that was great.

What kind of a Stug was that? Early one with 75mm short hwtzr?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by CavScout:

"Deutschland über den Verbündeten" anyone?

CavScout - before we go down the usual, and the typically unproductive way of flaming again on the issue - do you have any data on Allied infantry training courses in taking out tanks in close combat? I have (somewhere) the PDF of a training brochure for German infantry that confirms Michael's statement. Can dig it out in the next few days.

Also - it is 'Allierte', nicht 'Verbuendete'. Babelfish is not good enough for anyone to understand your attempts at humour.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 02-07-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

Not sure what the fuss is about; don't speak German. I am a student of Canadian forces in WW II, but have a healthy interest in the Germans as well. I've talked to fallschirmjaeger, a Leutnant from Panzer Lehr (who invited me to his home to show me his medals and photos), PaK and Nebelwerfer vets. Doesn't make me an expert, but it does mean I feel equipped enough to at least start a serious conversation.

If you're not equipped to continue one, Cavscout, perhaps you shouldn't advertise it.

I'd be pleased to discuss the different approaches the infantry of various nationalities took to combatting armour - if you're up to it. I think you'll find the Germans were much better prepared from day one than any of their enemies.

The thing about having a weapon, is that you have to realize the enemy will have it soon, too, so take your measures now.

Germans invented Zimmerit because they assumed the enemy, too, would use magnetic anti-tank mines.

They trained their infantry to fight tanks because they knew that if Germany had them, others would eventually.

If only the Allies had been as well prepared when it came to designing tank guns. Eh?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

ROFL - Michael, that was great.

What kind of a Stug was that? Early one with 75mm short hwtzr?

I believe it was - I'll try and find the picture tonight.

[Skipper]

> Unless you were German...

... uber-race argument again?

Telemine is not the scenario I was talking about. Basically, it fully qualifies as AT weapon (or field fortification element, at least).

As well as half the other ways the manual you refer to describes. Requires a road by which an unsuspecting tank will travel to some sort of destination.

Soviet infantrymen used a lot of funny tricks to kill tanks, too, with an effect. After all, somebody, somehow prevented them from entering Moscow and Leningrad in 1941. The point is that when the tank has successfully reached a squad position and is rolling over the trench, and you have no aces under your sleeve, you are almost surely dead. If you are VERY LUCKY, it will pass you unspotted and you can cut the following infanrty out.

[Skipper]

Soviets and Germans were the only two nations on european theater who regularly had to face tanks without friendly heavy weapons support. Most of the tricks were originally devised in the trenches, by the very guys for whom it was a matter of survival (this sort of situation makes you think very hard, you know).

[Skipper]

Oops, my fault. Telermine-telemine. Didn't get what you were talking about.

There was a soviet equivalent. If memory serves, it was not magnetic, but stuck to the tank armor with some sort of goo.

[Michael Dorosh]

I think perhaps a language barrier is preventing us from communicating as effectively as possible, so forgive me from the outset. I don't think a road is in any way a prerequisite to fighting a tank; not sure what your meaning is here.

My understanding is that German troops were taught anti-tank tactics, and while many may have been made up on the spot, I am fairly certain many tactics were fairly well known. I haven't seen the video of Men Against Tanks but it is supposed to be a good example of a wartime training film.

I do agree that armour may be over represented in CM - but only in the number of scenarios that feature them, not in how they are used within them. It's one of the concessions to playability and "fun".

[Guest wwb_99]

I do not think armor is too powerful in CM. Just from reading primary sources, all but crack troops seem to have dreadful fear of tanks when lacking AT support (meaning ATGs or tanks).

[kmead]

I have had good success in defending against tanks. No they won't commit suicide like lemmings into the water to achieve it. Green troops will traipse around and end up getting slaughtered as they panic. If the units have Fausts (German) or rifle grenades (US) the units can very effectively deal with tanks. Open topped vehicles, such as the various Marders, German AA, open artillery units, the American M18, M36, halftracks, M7. All can be dealt with using regular hand grenades. I've lost an M18 or two in Close Encounter due to failure ot pay attention to infantry up close.The game is not over when the last of your armor has been transformed into a funeral pire .

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

"German troops were trained not to be afraid of enemy armour"

LOL. Yeah, and all Christians are trained not to be afraid of death if they have lived a virtuous life. But does that mean they aren't?

The Germans issued -

more than 750,000 infantry anti-tank mines, not buried ones but the stick-em-on-yourself kind

1.9 million Panzerschreck rounds (that weren't returned for defects) for 290,000 Panzerschreck launchers

7.4 million Panzerfausts (again, minus returns)

23.8 million rifle grenades, a large fraction of them AT-capable types, effective against lighter or flank armor

So, that means the German infantry that "was trained not to be afraid of tanks" had about *20 million* chances to prove it. The U.S. and Russian combined produced less than 200,000 AFVs in all of WW II. The Brits added some, but some also went elsewhere. As an upper bound, there might have been 250,000 Allied AFVs total. So the German infantry had *80* to *100* effective AT weapons issued to them, for every AFV built by the combined Allies.

The combined Allies still had fleets of thousands of AFVs at the end of the war. The German infantry AT weapons were in fact not the predominant AT killers in the German inventory, either. Tanks were first, TDs and assault guns seconds, AT guns (and AA used in that role) third. Between them those weapons with their better range accounted for the large majority of the Allied AFVs actually taken out.

If the German infantry was not afraid of Allied armor, then why pray tell did they need 500 AT weapons or more for every Allied tank they actually knocked out with the things, computing that figure at is hypothetical most generous possible amount?

I will tell you why. Because such weapons rarely had a chance to be used, were rarely used even when there was a chance, and rarely succeeded when they were used. And any way you compound those factors, the last of them is going to be the least of the factors, and it is going to leave a whopping huge majority of the fearless Germans with effective AT weapons in their hands headed for the tall grass or lying as still as possible in their holes.

Just like everybody else...

[Michael Dorosh]

"German troops were trained not to be afraid of enemy armour"

LOL. Yeah, and all Christians are trained not to be afraid of death if they have lived a virtuous life. But does that mean they aren't?

Jason, you're a pain in the ass! LOL! No doubt I stated that poorly. I just mean that they actually did receive instruction in anti-armour actions from early on in the war; Allied troops were told that their anti-tank guns would do that for them. The Allies had the advantage of being on the offensive for the most part from 1943 on, and could pick and choose a little better where the infantry would fight, and how they would deal with enemy armour. They did get some nasty surprises, nonetheless!

You provide some interesting numbers; I was extending the example to earlier in the war, but it does go to prove my point - whatever equipment he had, the German infantryman really had no reason to be afraid of enemy armor as it was in his power to deal with it - and he knew it.

I'm not saying Allied troops all broke and ran - I've posted about the Panthers knocked out by PIATs in Normandy and by Smokey Smith, VC. But I don't think Allied troops by and large had as much faith in their own ability to stand up to armour - and as you point out, probably didn't have to do so very often without support.

If the German infantry was not afraid of Allied armor, then why pray tell did they need 500 AT weapons or more for every Allied tank they actually knocked out with the things, computing that figure at is hypothetical most generous possible amount?

Don't be fatuous, Jason. If you can provide decent weapons for your troops, are you not going to provide them? Why would a generous scale of issue of AT weapons prove that German infantry troops couldn't deal effectively with enemy armour on their own?

I will tell you why. Because such weapons rarely had a chance to be used, were rarely used even when there was a chance, and rarely succeeded when they were used. And any way you compound those factors, the last of them is going to be the least of the factors, and it is going to leave a whopping huge majority of the fearless Germans with effective AT weapons in their hands headed for the tall grass or lying as still as possible in their holes.

I don't agree with your assessment of "rarely succeeded" - if Buchner could take out three T-34s with hand grenades, I am sure a look at Infantry Aces by Williamson will find me some more examples. If anyone can name me an Allied soldier who took out three tanks with hand held weapons, I'd like to hear about it. Given the scarcity of German armour, you would be hard pressed.

I'm not trying to start a contest as to whose men were braver - they were all gutsy just for being there and not running - but I think there is ample evidence to show that German infantry were trained in anti-tank methods from early on, and there are plenty of examples of those methods being used to good effect.

If there is another point to this thread, I am unaware or it.

Good statistics, by the way, I found them quite interesting.

[Michael Dorosh]

However, one point - do your calcuations show how many anti-tank weapons were used for other purposes (ie against infantry, as has been discussed in other threads). I think you'll find your numbers a little skewed.

[malthoff]

I Disagree. Play a few more games. I played a Q B one time. All my armour was liquidated.

So I took a V P with my remaining infantry and let the Enemy attack me with armour.(I was in woods), I took out 3 tanks with an infantry charge of 6 squads- "Infantry is the Queen of the Battlefield"

[Guest Michael emrys]

As far as CM is concerned, if you are losing tanks to infantry assaults, you might want to think about reëxamining your tactics.

Michael

[Cos]

Soviet infantrymen used a lot of funny tricks to kill tanks, too, with an effect. After all, somebody, somehow prevented them from entering Moscow and Leningrad in 1941.

When it's cold enough in the winter for oil to freeze inside the engine of your tank, that doesn't help either

[PzKpfw 1]

Training vs tanks does not equate to automatic success, nor even enhanced performance. Killing tanks depened on the individuals resolve attempting the task.

The Germans may have trained & even instituted tank weak point training & an tank destruction badge as an incentive, even so, many German troops froze up in their foxholes, Ie, on the Eastren Front many German troops even in 1944 - 1945 were crushed or panicked & fled when faced with an tank assault.

Determined men are another factor I wouldb guess in CM elite troops would be more likely to stand & fight then green, regular, or Vets.

Panzerfausts gave German inf an independant ability to kill tanks, but it did not mean the troops actualy used the wpn. An good example of use of Panzerfausts, was in the Berlin fighting, the Soviets reported the loss of 120 tanks in one day to Inf hand held SC wpns.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[GriffinCheng+]

Let's get back to the original question.

In CMBO, infantry are pretty defendless against AFV, even your squads are armed from AT weapon like panzerfraust and rifle grenade.

From my little experiences, the factors are taken in account:

1. Is the afv supported by infantry? i.e. the afv has friendly foot soldiers (not passengers) within los and firing range.

2. Is the afv buttoned? Buttoned tanks are a little more vunerable to unbottoned ones since buttoned tanks have less field of view.

3. Is the afv immoblized? Static target is almost as good as dead.

4. Is the afv moving? If it is at "fast" speed, it is very likely to run into ambushes. However, moving vechicles are harder to kill in non-ambush situation.

5. Does the attacking infantry stay well covered? Ambushes have better chance of getting a kill first. Also, infantry in covered terrian like tall pines and buildings provides very good covers for tank killings.

6. What is the overall moral? Lower moral means less initative to attack an afv.

7. What is the quality of the infantry? Higher quality means highly likelihood of using AT weapon, if any.

8. Is the afv turretless or open topped? Turretless and/or open top vechicles are very vunerable.

9. What is the direction of the attack? If the infantry attacks in directions other than head-on, it is more likely to success especially against turretless afv.

10. What is the range? Grenades only work at very close range (< 10m), panzerfrausts have different effective ranges based on time peroids. schrecks and zooks have less than stellar accuraccies at ranges > 100m, at most of the time. But you may have read stories about first shot kills at amazing ranges.

11. Is the infantry within HQ c&C? If the hq has moral and combat modifiers definitely boosts combat, in general.

It is really nasty when a afv shooting infantries at stand-off ranges (ie. > 200m) and the other side has no proper counter weapon at disposal. Either think about alternative tactics.

Griffin.

P.S. Flipper, my advise is next time, use proper puncutations in your message, for it is kinda hard to read.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[GriffinCheng+]

Following my previous post, there are a number of "other" weapons in CMBO which prove to be pretty good tank kiler.

Motar -- especially open topped or thin-topped afv like Hertzer. There are many threads disucssing the power (or overpower) of this little killers. I have yet to see one heavies like Jadgtiger or Jadgpanther killed by motar.

OBA -- large artilleries kill, but far fewer casess. However, if it is a scenario which is not double-blind, a well placed fo is very dangerous. Ask the veterans who have played "Valley of Trouble" can tell.

Ahh! Nearly forget about the mighty close air support!

Still the most effective weapon to kill a tank is another tank.

Griffin.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng+ (edited 02-07-2001).]