Infantry VS Armor

[Ron Lee]

Would not all agree, that when Infantry engages Armor, the thing to remember is the crew moral of the AFV.If enough fireoerpower can be placed on an AFV to reduce the moral of the AFV crew to a point to cause them to abandon the AFV, then your purpose is still served.I have seen more AFV's abandoned in my games than destroyed.Besides it was standard tactics to bring ever avaiable infantry weapon availabe to bear on opposing AFV's,as always moral determins victory on any battlefield.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ron Lee:

...as always moral determins victory on any battlefield.<hr></blockquote>

Ultimately yes. But nothing quite undermines the troops' morale like watching their buddies die in droves. Second worse but very important in mechanised warfare is watching your side's equipment go up in smoke. All this is reflected quite nicely in the game.

Michael

[JasonC]

I don't agree with the original proposition, actually. Having everyone, including infantry small arms, just mad minute away at enemy AFVs wastes ammo and exposes your positions. It also diverts fire from targets the lighter weapons can actual do something to. If everybody stands and blasts whenever enemy armor appears, the other side's infantry and MGs are unsuppressed, they see all your positions, and their armor is not any worse off (assuming it is already buttoned).

Using one tank to draw fire to locate positions is a common tactic, and it exploits the green commander's inclination to throw all the lead he can at any tank that appears. The tank is not harmed, and the located shooters are then plastered with indirect artillery, or by whole platoons or companies worth of tanks firing direct.

Fire at AFVs should be efficient rather than indiscriminate. It can indeed make sense to overload enemy AFVs with HE firing weapons, or with multiple small cannon, to rack up enough hits to inflict multiple minor damage results. But small arms have no place in this, and are better off restricting their fire to targets they can harm. The hail of HE and small AP idea is one anti-armor tactic, and can have its place (especially on offense, when more total firepower can be brought to bear).

But heavier, more effective AT weapons can often accomplish more by careful stalking. The point of such stalking is to protect the shooter by stealth - he is only exposed to deliver the lethal shot, and then pops out of sight again. This is especially important for defenders, who rarer can afford to expose themselves continually to all of the attacker's firepower - no matter what their "morale".