CM2 limitations and tankodesantnik

[Commissar]

Considering the Red Army extensively used tanks to carry troops into actual battle, I was wondering if anything has been said concerning having these tank riders fire while mounted on the tank on the move. It was a common tactic but I was wondering if the tweaked CM2 will allow this. Any info is appreciated. Thanks.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:

Considering the Red Army extensively used tanks to carry troops into actual battle, I was wondering if anything has been said concerning having these tank riders fire while mounted on the tank on the move. It was a common tactic but I was wondering if the tweaked CM2 will allow this. Any info is appreciated. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can carry squads on tanks now. What was so special about the Red Army that you can not do now? These squads were just very SMG heavy. I am sure they died as fast if a MG swept the tank deck as Germans who rode on a tank would. Regarding their firing on the move, have you seen a picture of them on the tanks? I would be interested in your sources that say they fired on the move, from pictures I have seen there was no way they could fire. They had to hold on to the tank. Also, even if one or two might be able to fire, with their SMGs from a moving platform at a distance of more than probably 20-30m they would just be wasting ammo.

[Scott B]

It's actually what wasn't special about the Red Army-- tank riding wasn't as common on the Western front as it was in the East because the Soviets mostly lacked motorized transports for their troops, and where they didn't have trucks (or the smattering of extremely rare lend-leased half-tracks), their infantry rode on tanks.

Anyway, the Soviets did transport infantry into battle on tanks, but it's clearly not the best solution to the problem and they knew it. One of the main factors pointing to this is the fact that the Soviets in the post war era put a high priority on armored infantry transport, due to the lessons of the GPW.

I question the need to model infantry firing from tanks, particularly since CMBO does not model infantry firing from half-tracks and open topped transport vehicles. What's more, the designers seem to be moving in the opposite direction as it is, by restricting the firepower of a running (ie: not Assaulting) squad in CMBB-- if they're limiting a unit's ability to fire while running, continuing to limit a unit's ability to fire while clinging on to an armored vehicle moving cross-country seems appropriate.

Scott

[RCHRD]

I think the tank rider component of Soviet tank brigades was more to provide close in support than to carry infantry onto an objective.

[Skipper]

In fact, it was both ways. Transport AND close-in support.

Firing on anything that resembled an ATG or faustpatron shooter was definitely part of their brief. And they were told not to try saving ammo on such targets - the tank as much more precious. The idea of the tactic was not so much fire for effect, as suppression and target indication. Wild shooting would show the threat axis to the tank crew, and with a bit of luck buy some time for a tank to swing turret that way, acquire the target and open up with HMGs and the main gun.

We are talking, say, 6 PPSHs firing long bursts at the same target. I guess, density of fire should have been alarming for the receiving side, and a stray round could even hit the target.

On assault, the task of riding infantry was to stay on the tank as long a possible and ideally, disembark straight into the enemy trenches, thus passing the defenders' pre-planned killing zones in the shortest possible time. After which the surviving tanks would either move on, or stay and help the infantry with securing the assaulted area - depending on the ultimate objectives.

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

You can carry squads on tanks now. What was so special about the Red Army that you can not do now? These squads were just very SMG heavy. I am sure they died as fast if a MG swept the tank deck as Germans who rode on a tank would. Regarding their firing on the move, have you seen a picture of them on the tanks? I would be interested in your sources that say they fired on the move, from pictures I have seen there was no way they could fire. They had to hold on to the tank. Also, even if one or two might be able to fire, with their SMGs from a moving platform at a distance of more than probably 20-30m they would just be wasting ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Red Army used tank riders extensively and this is well documented. They did so because of their lack of adequate troop transports like half tracks. It was the only pratical way for the tanks to have immediate infantry support. Other armies had troops riding on tanks on a much more limited basis. You can even see photos of the Germans doing the same thing but they rarely if ever did this in combat situations due to the great disadvantages of the practice. I believe any tank riding was limited to mere transport behind the lines instead of actual combat usage.

The sources I'm referring to are veteran accounts from the tank riders themselves. Accuracy obviously wasn't wonderful but they normally carried PPsH and PPS SMGs so they didn't need to be terribly accurate. There was no standard procedure set concerning when to fire and when not to fire. It depended on the situation. Yes, they were very vulnerable and casualities were quite high especially when hit with MG and accurate mortar fire.

We'll obviously we can have troops ride on tanks now in CM1 but you'll notice they don't actually fire back or anything while they ride. That's my question on CM2.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:

We'll obviously we can have troops ride on tanks now in CM1 but you'll notice they don't actually fire back or anything while they ride. That's my question on CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know they used tank-riders, and I know that they were the only ones doing that in that style. What I doubt is that they could actually deliver a significant amount of fire from the tank. I have not seen much mention of this. That is why I asked for your sources, because I am interested.

Vet accounts are conflicting (e.g. one TC of a T-34 says the tank never fired on the move and always moved full throttle on the battlefield, stopping to fire, while Loza says that he moved at 12 km/h and fired on the move, but rarely; both interviews on the Russian Battlefield). The interesting question is when these guys dismounted. If it was far out (200m range plus), they probably would not need to fire from the tank. If they only dismounted in the German position, it would make sense.

As someone else here said, it was partly alleviation of a transport problem anyway, and the doctrinal use was to have infantry ride along to protect the tank from enemy infantry. Loza says that the Tankodesantniki pointed out targets. I can not recall him saying that they opened fire themselves, but that may just be my memory. Again, the pictures I have seen and my vivid imagination of having 8-10 guys clinging to the sides and back of a T-34 does not make me believe that they can deliver much fire, even in suppressive mode. I may be well wrong on this though.

Do you have sources in English or German stating that firing from the tank was done as a matter of course? Afraid I don't speak Russian.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

I know they used tank-riders, and I know that they were the only ones doing that in that style. What I doubt is that they could actually deliver a significant amount of fire from the tank. I have not seen much mention of this. That is why I asked for your sources, because I am interested.

Vet accounts are conflicting (e.g. one TC of a T-34 says the tank never fired on the move and always moved full throttle on the battlefield, stopping to fire, while Loza says that he moved at 12 km/h and fired on the move, but rarely; both interviews on the Russian Battlefield). The interesting question is when these guys dismounted. If it was far out (200m range plus), they probably would not need to fire from the tank. If they only dismounted in the German position, it would make sense.

As someone else here said, it was partly alleviation of a transport problem anyway, and the doctrinal use was to have infantry ride along to protect the tank from enemy infantry. Loza says that the Tankodesantniki pointed out targets. I can not recall him saying that they opened fire themselves, but that may just be my memory. Again, the pictures I have seen and my vivid imagination of having 8-10 guys clinging to the sides and back of a T-34 does not make me believe that they can deliver much fire, even in suppressive mode. I may be well wrong on this though.

Do you have sources in English or German stating that firing from the tank was done as a matter of course? Afraid I don't speak Russian.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I personally don't know of any English or German sources. The conflicting info on use of tank riders would indicated to me the lack of standardization rather than evidence it wasn't used. Instead of trying to cubby hole a practice as being never done or always done or even often done, we need to consider the possiblity that different units did different things. What is very clear is the lack of any standard regs on the practice. In an interview conducted on the Russian Battlefield, one vet tank rider commented on this lack of standradization I believe. Even a practice such as SMG deployment in front or behind the tank varied. Sometimes they did deploy in the front, other times from behind. The interview is actually just a short brief of the full interview. It hasn't been posted yet except in the Russian Battlefield forum. They say they will post the full interview later.

My guess is the firing on the move is probably yet another feature that may be in the engine rewrite but won't be seen in CM2 since CM2 uses the CM1 as its foundation.

[Michael Emrys]

I would expect that their primary targets for fire on the move would not be AT guns, but infantry, especially infantry with satchel charges or AT grenades and later on Panzerfausts. At those ranges, their fire would be very effective, at least for suppression.

Michael

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Andrew H.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I would expect that their primary targets for fire on the move would not be AT guns, but infantry, especially infantry with satchel charges or AT grenades and later on Panzerfausts. At those ranges, their fire would be very effective, at least for suppression.

Michael

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree. They would also be more useful for spotting a concealed guy with a Pf than the tank alone.

But I think that close defense vs. shrecks, etc., plus infantry overrun, would be the only real reason to model firing while mounted. This could probably be abstracted, somewhat, too.

In normal battle conditions, I don't think that the couple of infantrymen who would have LOS to a target from the side or rear of the tank would be able to put much effective fire on it by firing one-handed with an SMG.

[Skipper]

How else, do you think, would a tank desant indicate a target to a buttoned up tank? They had no fancy intercom plugs outside.

[The Commissar]

Don't worry about "No LOS from rear/side of tank". One can easily climb from the rear area of a tank to the front, or simply stand behind the turret to see whats in front of you. Granted, not all 9 men (average # in squad) could do this, but at least half could. Now, firing one handed, thats another story.

We have to think about this though. Say a T-34 with tank riders (full squad, say 9) is moving through whatever area (say, a steppe). Now they've been told to breach the enemy line. The enemy is dug in and whatnot. The tank is buttoned up (I believe this was the procedure when in combat, correct me if neccessary). So the tank rider spots a German squad, dug in. The Sgt indicates to the TC where the target is. How he does this I dont really know, but Im guessing by knocking on the tank and yelling really loud.

So what happens next? The enemy is spotted 50 metres off, the tank is still in motion. What is the procedure for further engagement? If the tank continues to move towards the target, firing at the same time, we can assume its not at a very fast speed. Hard to place accurate fire at very fast speeds, over rough terrain, without Gyros. At a low speed, the tank riders could in theory stand up behind the tank's turret (or crouch behind it), using both hands to fire off their weapons. If the speed we're talking about is under 15mph, thats pretty reasonable, although of course it will depend on terrain conditions.

Or, perhaps, the tank stops altogether and places nice accurate shots? In that case, the tank riders can also use their weapons with full accuracy, behind the cover provided by the tank turret. Flanking fire is a different issue, of course...

So maybe the game should look at the sort of terrain the tank is moving across, and determine a speed at which the soldiers had a good chance of being able to use their weapons. For clear areas, this would be moderate speed. For Rought terrain this speed would be lower. Think it makes sence.

[Andreas]

This speculation is of course very interesting, as to how they could fire, what speed the tank was at, and whatnot. I would be interested how many here have been on the back of a small tank (as the T-34 really was) while it was driving over rough countryside, and been able to do anything but hold on for the life of it. For that matter, I would like to hear how many have been on the back of a small tank while it was driving. Americans can try this by getting their pick-up truck out of the shed, have the wifey drive, while themselves getting on the back, drive through a plowed over field, and try to shoot gophers with the old .22. I can't wait for the results to roll in.

Really, I think while all this surmising might pass the time, the only thing I can really see help the issue is:

a) doctrine, i.e. training manuals

the voices of the vets, both German and Red Army

c) pick-ups and gophers

Until then, this is really a non-discussion in terms of usefulness of what BTS ought to do. For every surmising as to what may have happened, I raise you one on why that may not have happened.

Regarding indicating by firing at a target - IIRC Loza states they knocked on the hatch. Also, who said the tank was buttoned? I would expect a tank with a bunch of TRs to not be buttoned. Why bother, there are lots better targets than the TC. Also, what would the TR think of the TC when he buttons while they hang about outside. Again, according to Loza they had a close relationship in which that may have mattered.

Also, can we have a definition of 'range'? Somebody above said 'at such ranges' - what ranges? Driving into the trench mounted? Getting off the tank at 200m out? Getting off when fired on by automatic weapons?

Sorry, so far I have not seen anything that would convince me that they:

a) fired

if so, could deliver fire at any accuracy, even to achieve suppression. These guys were armed with SMGs. How accurate os a PPSh or whatever they are called at 100+ metres?

[Ron]

Yeah, I can see it now, the John Wayne types standing freestyle on the engine deck spraying fire left and right one handed, while the other hand (or is it foot?) is rapping directions to the tank crew through the turret, you know right 38', 100m or some such, while the tank is moving unerringly, precision-like like the eleventh coming of Doom, while the enemy is struck numb by the sheer beauty of these acrobatics (oh and getting suppressed to hell as well), unable to fire on such an easy target etc etc etc.

What was the consenus of firing from HTs? At least with a HT a soldier would have the luxury(!) of something to brace himself against.

Don't mind me I have a vivid imagination as well.

Ron

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:

Yeah, I can see it now, the John Wayne types standing freestyle on the engine deck spraying fire left and right one handed, while the other hand (or is it foot?) is rapping directions to the tank crew through the turret, you know right 38', 100m or some such, while the tank is moving unerringly, precision-like like the eleventh coming of Doom, while the enemy is struck numb by the sheer beauty of these acrobatics (oh and getting suppressed to hell as well), unable to fire on such an easy target etc etc etc.

What was the consenus of firing from HTs? At least with a HT a soldier would have the luxury(!) of something to brace himself against.

Don't mind me I have a vivid imagination as well.

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, how often was it that troops in half tracks actually fired their weapons on the move? I'm guessing the half track would have to move somewhat slow and on level ground.

As far as the tank riders, I believe they often deployed somewhat aways from the objective when attacking but getting in close to the target before engaging was not unheard of.

Here is the partial interview with a vet tank rider from The Russian Battlefield:

There is a part of an interview with Bessonov Eugeni Ivanovich, colonel in retirement. During the Great Patriotic War he was a "tankodesantnik". Tankodesantnik was an infantryman, who rode on tank. In western sources such infantry named "SMG infantry".

The whole interview recorded by Artem Drabkin will be available later on the Russian Battlefield website.

1. What does he think about accusations that Soviets raped many German women?

-Yes, there were rapes, but they weren't numerous since it was prohibited and very punishable. For example, my colleague was refused to be decorated Hero of the Soviet Union.

2. Was there much discrimination between different ethnicities in the Soviet Army?

-No! Absolutely!

3. What would be the ratio of desantnik losses to tanker losses? I've read tankers suffered 10% of the accompanying infantry casualties. Can he confirm or deny it?

-In average, during 25 combat days (Orel operation, Kamenets-Podolsk pocket, Lvov operation, Visla operation) all casualties KIA+MIA+WIA in my company were 70-80%, AFVs losses were 80-90%.

4. During exploitation phase, how often would they have to engage the enemy forces?

-In average 15-25 kilometres. But there were days when we didn't engage with enemy at all.

5. How far from the enemy would they dismount? Or did they dismount already when under fire?

-From 250-300 metres, usually it occurred after the first foe's shot. Sometimes we didn't dismount at all but fought riding on tanks.

Artem tried to clear up when did they dismount and when they did not? He said there were no rules, they desided themselves to dismount or to stay on tanks.

Also Artem asked what did they do right after they dismount. He replied they immediately created an extended lines and advanced towards the enemy.

Artem asked did they walk ahead their tanks or behind? He replied they did both; there were no rules also.

5. What was the most dangerous German weapon they encountered?

-Tanks and mortars. The training level of German tankers and mortar men remained high during the whole war, while training lever of their infantry became lower and lower as the war progressed.

6. Did they take any prisoners during exploitation, and what did they do with them?

-Our primary task was to penetrate German's defense. However, if captured, we didn't shot up them but pass them to rear units.

7. Did they liberate any Soviet POWs, and how did they treat them (or what did they think of them)?

-Yes. Most of them were drafted into Red Army and fought together with us.

8. First, did they ride on tanks all the time, or only into combat areas? For example, was truck transport available for the infantry during redeployment of the unit?

-Usually we were on tanks, but sometimes in trucks or by foot. It depended of what transport was available. During advance were rode on tanks.

9. Second, were tankodesantniki more experienced troops, or the same as non-tank riding troops? I mean to say, were tankodesantniki given the pick of troops from their parent unit?

-Sure! We were elite, but this mostly refers to our supply, not picking better troops. We were provided with leather top-boots (other infantry wore lace-boots), armed with PPSh and PPS submachine-guns.

10. Third, were tankodesantniki always given submachineguns, like PPSh41, or were their weapons more varied?

-You might have what do you like. Well, most of us used PPSh, but there were carbine lovers. Personally I had a Walter pistol.

-Why?

-Because my task was to command, not to kill enemy. Walter was my self-defense weapon.

11. How many people rode on a tank?

- Usually 12-15 men. For every SMG company (~80-100 men) there were six or seven tanks attached

---From this vet's experience, his unit did fight on the tank at times.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:

[snip]

5. How far from the enemy would they dismount? Or did they dismount already when under fire?

-From 250-300 metres, usually it occurred after the first foe's shot. Sometimes we didn't dismount at all but fought riding on tanks.

Artem tried to clear up when did they dismount and when they did not? He said there were no rules, they desided themselves to dismount or to stay on tanks.

[snip]

---From this vet's experience, his unit did fight on the tank at times.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had actually seen this one.

The quote above to me is the key-bit, and it suggests to me that the norm was to get off the tank when fire was opened, at the range quoted (what was the effective range of these SMGs again?). Of course that is my interpretation and yours may vary. The problem with these things is that if you allow fighting on the tank, you can be sure that it will become the norm, instead of a rare occurence. The CMBB variation of the VG SMG squad. Unless that is, the Beta testers can show that if this was coded in, the loss rate would be so high and/or the accuracy so low that it is really a trade-off that you have to pay for.

12-15 guys. Have you ever seen a T-34? I have, and I can for the life of me not imagine it to be a platform from which 12-15 men can fight, even when it stands. It is a bloody small tank really, with many sloped surfaces.

[JasonC]

US armored infantry also regularly rode tanks, despite having plenty of halftracks. As I understand it, the nature of the practice is basically as follows -

Infantry working with an armored unit, thus in a high ratio of tanks to infantry (1:1 not 1:3 in unit size terms), would often ride the tanks instead of lighter transport. They typically would dismount as soon as they were fired upon. The point was to have immediate infantry protection for the tanks against close-in infantry AT weapons. At the ranges AT ambushes would be attempted, this meant going after the ambushers with SMGs or grenades, rapidly - not just from the tank fired on, but from the whole platoon or company.

The basic message this sent to enemy ambush attempts was that you were not going to get a short range shot at a blind beast and then get away by remaining hidden or by stealthy movement. And the effect was to make holding fire until a very short range suicidal. No matter if you bagged one tank or most of the riders on it; the riders of the rest of the tanks in the formation would be on the ground, in cover, and close by in a matter of seconds. And they would kill you, even if the tanks couldn't see you.

To avoid that outcome, infantry formations would have to open up at longer range with MGs or mortars, etc, to force the infantry to dismount. The tanks would then halt and return the fire with MGs and HE. The entire point was this outcome meant the tanks were warned of the presence of the enemy infantry from *beyond* the range of infantry AT weapons - fausts, schrecks, mag mines, etc. That the tank-riding infantry would then be left on the ground looking for cover at 200 meters or more, beyond effective SMG and grenade range, was quite irrelevant. Because at that range, the tanks would smoke the revealed defending infantry like a cheap cigar.

What the tanks required was not an ability to kill infantry from 200 meters plus - they already had that. What they needed was an ability to kill or spot infantry that held its fire down to much closer ranges than that, to attempt AT ambushes. The riders either deterred the attempt in the first place, or eliminated the attempters with SMGs and grenades.

The decision as the the range of the engagement was in the defender's hands. Long, the infantry would not hurt them, but the tanks would. Short, enough of the riders would dismount successfully, close by, that the attackers life expectancy was low.

Even people with half tracks did this, because it made tactical sense, because riding the tanks ensures the range to the tank, and the range to the infantry, are the same. The defender can't pick two ranges, one for infantry (long) and another for tanks (short), and that is the whole idea.

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

12-15 guys. Have you ever seen a T-34? I have, and I can for the life of me not imagine it to be a platform from which 12-15 men can fight, even when it stands. It is a bloody small tank really, with many sloped surfaces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, never seen one in real life but I have seen many photos and some archive materials. You can fit about 15 guys on a T-34 definitely. There are quite a few photos of them fitting about 12-15 guys on the tank. It's definitely crowded and god forbid a good swift sweep of an MG42 or some tank round hits the tank. I'd imagine it would be like using human flesh for reactive armor. You'll notice the handles run almost the entire length of the turret. Fighting would be difficult if the T-34 is going fairly fast and/or over rough terrain. Moving the turret with that many men is probably a no-no as well since they probably end up knocking off the guys hanging on the sides of the tank. They probably would have a very tough time to impossible firing while in rough terrain and/or high speed since they would still need to hold onto something in order to prevent falling off. However, on a fairly level surface some of the tank riders could aim and fire. The guys riding on the sides probably couldn't though.

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:

Nope, never seen one in real life but I have seen many photos and some archive materials. You can fit about 15 guys on a T-34 definitely. It's definitely crowded and god forbid a good swift sweep of an MG42 or some tank round hits the tank. I'd imagine it would be like using human flesh for reactive armor. You'll notice the handles run almost the entire length of the turret. Fighting would be difficult if the T-34 is going fairly fast and/or over rough terrain. They probably would have a very tough time to impossible since they would still need to hold onto something from falling off. However, on a fairly level surface several of the tank riders could aim and fire. The guys riding on the sides probably couldn't though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I would have thought too. Then there is always the risk that you have fracticide, either on your own tank or on the tank moving next to yours.

If you ever come to London, they have one in the IWM, and in Berlin they have a 76 and an 85 version at the surrender museum in Karlshorst (which is a great place to go to for every German and Russian speaker, BTW). They have a KV-1 and a BT-26(?) in Bovington, too.

I was shocked at how small the T-34 was. Great design work.

[Commissar]

Considering the tank riders had such a high casualty rate, space on the crowded tank probably opened up real fast. A crappy way to address a disadvantage

Does that tank museum in England have an actual working T-34/85? Some of the contemporary footage I've seen of a still working T-34/85 seemed to be in England and it had some reenactors dressed as tank riders. The turret moved pretty fast too. Not at all like the lumbering turret of a Tiger.

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Sergei]

I still believe the actual purpose was to have some spaced armour against Schrecks and Fausts.