Armor objectives

[Tigrii]

In your normal battle, the objective that you set for the infantry in the pre-setting-up, terrain-scanning, head-scratching phase is to advance on the best covered route to physically hold the flags, or to defend the flags if defending. In my experience, setting objectives for armor is tougher. You can't very well decide, "well, I'll just grab that hill" because for all you know, there five PAKs have it zeroed in. I find that players usually just keep armor in reserve, out of sight, and the objective is enemy armor, once it appears. I am wondering what other people think and what they set as objectives for their armor.

[flamingknives]

I do as you've just said, but I also look for decent positions to take hull down from.

I also like to keep the armour quite close behind the main body of infanty support, using light/scout vehicles to smoke out ATGs

[JasonC]

You analyze the map differently with the "armor war" hat on, than with the "squad infantry" hat on. The heavy weapons are intermediate between the two, incidentally, with quirks of their own to be sure.

The main thing is the way you look at cover. Cover for squad infantry is the physical tiles they are moving through, easily presented for you right on the map. But cover for armor war purposes is "defilade" - complete LOS blockages.

The map is "compartmentalized" by LOS blockages. It is which points can see which other points that matters, not what kind of terrain is in each area. And this is typically a more complicated, "relational" thing than infantry cover. In the sense that the "cover" available at a particular point varies for every other point potentially looking at it, instead of being one value whoever is looking.

Too abstract. Well, perhaps there is "my side of this ridge". There is "his side of this ridge". Few ranged weapons on my side can see anything on his side and vice versa. But most ranged weapons on one side, can see nearly everything on that side. Then in armor war terms, there are only three "places" on the map - my side, his side, and the crest.

You don't need to get to particular points because of what is there. You only need to get LOS to certain areas. Range is rarely as important, though in some gun-armor match ups it can enter.

To be effective, your armor needs LOS to enemies - any enemies, and at any one given time preferably as few of them as possible, provided they are actually spotted by somebody. You blow those up. Then you move, with the idea of "walking" the limit of your LOS, rather than your physical location, through the enemy position.

Infantry you think of as advancing on woods A when they actually enter woods A - or at most, when they park in cover 100 yards shy of it, to overwatch the platoon that leapfrogs into A. Well, tanks you think of as "advancing on woods A" when they first creep into any location with LOS to the treeline at A. Because that is the point when (1) hidden ATGs at A might be able to engaged them and (2) they in return can blow up infantry or anything else defending (forward, anyway) woods A.

Your tanks are usually located behind your infantry physically. But their LOS can preceed the infantry somewhat - but not be too much. There should be some relation between the limits of LOS for your tanks, and the physical position or the next immediate objective of your infantry.

The reason not to put the tanks in a spot where they can see absolutely everything - if such a spot is available - is that absolutely everything can then see them, as well. They will draw fire. Every immobile gun in the enemy defense becomes effective. You have to duel them all, and all at once instead of one at a time with odds. And often, the range will be so long you only get a "sound contact" on PAK shooting at you, especially the smaller caliber types.

Putting tanks in spots that can see everything, therefore, is something you only do late, when you think the enemy AT network is already smashed. Occasionally a very thick AFV - like a Tiger, early in their lifespan - may just stand in the open in such a challenging fashion.

But for most tanks, their life expectancy is much higher if you carefully walk their LOS through the enemy position, keeping it limited to the areas you plan to engage. This helps keep front armor pointing at the enemy, oncentrates firepower for replies, takes on bite sized portions of the defenders, etc.

So, all this being the case, what objectives do I set for armor? I set overwatch objectives. I want to establish live T-34 on ridge Gamma, for example. That will involve dueling anything that can see ridge Gamma. After I have silenced or intimidated everything that can see Gamma, I can "live there", and shoot up whatever can be seen from Gamma.

I pick such objectives based on a terrain analysis of the enemy defense, and my own overall plan of attack, by the infantry as well as the armor. The infantry may be involved in "securing" ridge Gamma - scouting out places that can see it, a half squad walking onto Gamma itself to see any tanks with LOS to it before I risk a tank there, etc. And in turn, "owning" ridge Gamma will mean dominating woods A or village B, for infantry fighting, by tank firepower at range.

Do these objectives always involve places with wide LOS over the whole field? No, they needn't. I don't always want to attack over the whole field. I may want to use a hill in the center to shield me from everything on the defender's right, for instance, and only face the guys he put on his left. Then an armor objective might be below the crest of the hill, off on its "shoulder" toward the side I plan to attack - with LOS forward, but not through the hill toward the part of the defense I am trying to avoid.

If the point I want to dominate by overwatch is itself high ground, I might want to establish my armor in a low ground area instead of another high ground area. A draw or valley with LOS to the distant hill-top, but protected against everything lower down. Then my armor lives in its draw, hunting up the edges just enough to get LOS to the hill I want to fire at. Enemy AT assets down at ground level can't see them.

There can be a sequence of such objectives, planned with the sequence of the infantry attack. But the maxim "keep it simple" applies, and you rarely need more than 2-3 major armor objectives. Maps aren't that large, LOS blocks aren't everywhere, and tank ranges are long. So only a few overall positions are likely to matter over the course of one fight. A light tank or two might probe elsewhere or support a given platoon against MGs or buildings, etc, but that hardly counts.

You want to think it terms of the areas you can dominate at range and by threat, if you got possession of a certain spot. It also helps if the choice of engagement remains with you, if you own the spot. E.g. you can decide whether to pass the crest, or come out from behind the houses, or not. So, a short movement should be able to radically reduce the area with LOS to your armor "stronghold".

I hope this helps.