Anti-Infantry with Stuarts and PSW-75mm

[JasonC]

Another thread raised the issue of the relative power of Stuarts and 75mm HE vehicles against infantry. I investigated it a little and here report my (limited) results.

Everyone is aware of the usefulness of the Stuart against light vehicles, due to its accurate and high ROF 37mm gun. And the test results and discussion below are not meant to comment on "recon rules", about which I know little since I haven't used them in practice. I was simply interested in the question, are multiple MGs able to do anti-infantry work, or are they outclassed by 75mm HE vehicles, even those with fewer or ineffective MGs?

I was interested in this in point balance terms. It is pretty common knowledge that MGs are somewhat undermodeled in CMBO. That is why changes were made in that respect for CMBB. Doctrinally, it is correct that tanks were meant to use their MGs against infantry, supplimented by HE when hardpoints or crew served weapons were encountered. But with CMBO generousity towards direct fire HE (due to point-accuracy effects in the HE results modeling, it seems) and relatively stingy to MGs (as noted, a well accepted and now corrected observation), it is not clear this works in practice in CMBO as it stands.

Please note that the following test was in no way meant to compare the overall effectiveness of the vehicle types compared. In vehicle on vehicle fights, the accuracy, ROF, and better armor protection of the Stuart are obviously important strengths. It is just their power against infantry, and even that under rather artificial conditions. Take the results with a grain or two of salt, therefore.

There were two things that made me think perhaps the Stuarts would come out ahead, despite the HE/MG modeling issues mentioned above. First, the Stuart has 250 MG ammo, which seems to be a generalized "pool" for all three of its MGs. Other vehicles with both a turret 50 cal and hull-coaxial, like Shermans, are given two ammo totals, with a much lower one for the 50 cal. But the Stuart does not have this seperate number, at least not displayed. So potentially it could have more aggregate MG firepower available.

The second is the well known fact that HE in CMBO targets "behind" moving units, or fails to lead them properly. This might lead even relatively useful HE, like 75mm, to have less than full effect on moving infantry. In addition, HE is relatively more effective against troops in cover, because it ignores concealment effects. Troops in cover are also less likely to be moving, or as rapidly. So, it seemed the optimum conditions for the Stuart MG side of the match up would be infantry trying to attack AFVs over open ground, while the Stuarts stayed unbuttoned if fire didn't button them up (to use the extra roof MG).

I used 2 Stuarts or 3 PSWs with 75mm. The first cost 190 and the second 198 as regulars, with the Stuarts using armor points. I used the PSWs rather than 251/9s because I find the added front armor (against 50 cals) well worth 6 points per vehicle. I put these vehicles by one large flag in the middle of open ground, 250-300 yards from a swath of scattered trees (100 yards deep). The terrain was perfectly flat, and no infantry AT inside the treeline could hit the start locations of the AFVs, or drive them away from the flag.

The idea was to put in enough infantry to stand a chance against the AFVs despite the terrain conditions heavily favoring armor. So the infantry side got a company. The default US rifle company for the Allied side, and for the Germans a Rifle 44 company with 3 HMG, 2 81mm mortars, and 3 Panzerschrecks. Thus in each case, a little over 500 points of infantry, with 1 infantry AT per platoon and a full heavy weapons platoon in each case.

I tried letting the AI command the infantry, but that gave quite silly results. The AI can't attack well anyway, and this situation is unconventional enough that it really doesn't know what to do. HQs charging, units running piecemeal to 50m and surrendering as soon as they get there - doesn't work at all. So instead I gave the AI the armor and commanded the infantry myself. Here are the results.

Germany infantry company against 2 Stuarts, over open ground - 21 Germans down, both Stuarts dead, took about 7 minutes. Both Stuarts were hit by schrecks at about 100m range. HMGs buttoned them, the mortars tried ineffectually to hit them, the infantry went in front of the schrecks, forming a crescent around them. With the idea of drawing fire to let the schrecks get closer, and to get close enough to swarm with faust if that did not work. The Stuarts hit one schreck team, hitting one man and breaking the other (early). They pinned a second team (medium). The third got them (at the end, over two minutes).

The PSWs were tackled by the same general method, but with the additional factor that the US 50 cal remained at the start line, hiding at first, waiting for flank shots. Then tried to get them at long range. This time I lost 52 men, including all three zook teams KOed to a man. One PSW was KOed by a rifle grenade at about 15m - after a couple of others had missed. A second was KOed by 2 squads in close assault under 10m. The last was finally KOed by the 50 cal, after several minutes of flanking fire as it backed away from the infantry "mob".

I think these were close to optimal conditions for the AFVs, but better for the Stuarts relative to the PSWs. Just suppressing infantry in a treeline from 250 meters, the HE vehicles would be relatively better off, as their firepower is less range dependent and less sensitive to target exposure.

The MGs are better in the open, but not enough better. (In CMBB, I suspect they will be rather more deadly in this sort of situation). Some may be put down to luck, in terms of how soon the AT teams were take out. Overall, though, there is reasonably strong evidence that ~130 75mm HE will hurt infantry more than 4 vehicle MGs (once buttoned), even with practically unlimited ammo for those (500 shots).

For what it is worth.

[PiggDogg]

Jason,

Most interesting post and I agree with your observations and assertions.

I frequently purchase Psw75s (Ac75). They don't use up valuable armor points, and they are pretty effective against infantry.

Of course, StgHs with its 105 is much better against infantry than the Ac75s. However, the Stg105s use up those armor points.

Stuarts are irritating gnat like tanks. They certainly have their place in the Allied arsenal in computer choose games. However, I doubt that I would purchase any Stuarts in an human choose game. They can't kill many German tanks (except PzIV and Lynxes) from the front.

For near the same price as a Stuart, one can purchase a Hellcat or an M-10 which can whack most German tanks from the front. The Hellcat & M-10 may be eggshells with hammers. However, Stuarts are a very slightly more robust eggshells with eggshells.

Keep your articles and research coming. I don't want to sound silly, but I always enjoy your work because it is well thought out, based on facts, well researched, and usually correct or darn near correct.

Cheers, Richard :cool:

[JasonC]

I must admit that I like Stuarts, despite the weakness undermodeled MGs give them in CMBO. It is realism that makes me use them occasionally, plus a general desire to get such an "underdog" to work.

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments about TDs being better at anti-armor work. Some use Hellcats for that and I admire anyone who can use them effectively, but not being the best tank driver I have trouble with them. It is 20mm vunerability that I don't like about them.

My favorite TD by far is the Jackson. It is true it has no gyro, but it has a fast turret (unlike the M10), very light things can't kill it from the front, it KOs even sloped armor beasties, Tiger Is, and Panthers if you hit the turret. The HE load is strictly limited but each shell is accurate and powerful. For 22 points more than a Stuart, there is just no contest.

I'd buy Stuarts if they cost closer to what HMCs cost. Actually, I think the Greyhound should cost what the HMC costs (58), the Stuart about what the Greyhound costs (73), and the HMC closer to what the Stuart costs (95). The last might be a bit high, but 58 isn't right.

The costs seem to rate extra MGs and more accurate main guns very high, and HE load and maximum penetration (even with limited HC or T rounds) rather low. If MGs did more to infantry than HE, and the trouble with AFVs was hitting them rather than penetrating them, those weightings might make sense. But the reverse is true on each point.

To use Stuarts effectively in CM as it is today, I like a mini-platoon of cavalry armor, that is not too gamey but uses the strengths CM offers. 2 Stuarts with 1 M8HMC, operating in a "V" with the HMC in the "back" position. Staying together for the most part, though of course doing the overwatch and bound thing, etc.

They are all fast turrets, small targets, quick, and 20mm doesn't KO them. The 37mm guns are accurate anti-light armor weapons, and one Stuart can always be sent for a flank while the other pair stays in the platoon's main position. They get 75mm HE firepower, a few 75mm C rounds, and plenty of MG ammo overall. For the cost of 2 vanilla Shermans or good TDs (248 points regular).

Are they better? No, probably not, and a gamier 4 HMCs might fight better. My standard way of spending that many armor points would be 1 Jackson and 1 plain M4A3 Sherman. But I can imagine as real 2 Stuarts supported by 1 of a cavalry squadron's assault guns (unlike an HMC horde), and occasionally I want to try cavalry vehicles.

I do look forward to CMBB where hopefully vehicle MGs will be far more effective - at least in the right conditions for them. Then small bodies of relatively light armor will have something truly useful to do, besides stalk just each other and run from anything bigger.

That being, deny open ground areas to infantry at minimal cost, or risk to heavier, more valuable AFVs. For the US cavalry in particular, that "combined arms ability" (scissors to infantry paper in open ground), used in a screening role, was the point of light armor.

[ June 21, 2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JasonC:

...occasionally I want to try cavalry vehicles.

Me too. Sometimes I have set up a QB with a small German infantry force on one side against a cavalry/recon force on the US side. The rationale is the Germans delaying in a village during either the post-August '44 pursuit or the post-March '45 exploitation. Usually a mixed group of M5s, M8 ACs, and a couple HMCs, along with a couple platoons of of infantry in halftracks. Usually fun, unless the Germans happen to bring along a lot of AT assets.

Michael

[JasonC]

I made one like that, called "Race Across France". Pretty fun. Put enough of those cavalry vehicles in the same spot, and their cumulative MG firepower, especially against only a few shooters showing themselves at a time (common in delaying actions), can be pretty effective.

Not "plus platoons of infantry in halftracks", though. The cavalry didn't have that. There were a few HTs in command sections, that sort of thing, but they did not have armored infantry. If they fought "dismounted", it was literally the drivers and crew of the vehicles doing it. Best way to show that in CM is no more than 1/2 squads riding on the back of things, or small teams (60mm, zooks, sharpshooters, 75mm FOs). Not many HMCs either. Those generally fired indirect.

It is fun trying to stop a flock of them with just German infantry, too. With a couple of schrecks, the odd IG or FO, HMGs and 81mm on map heavy weapons - but nothing like tanks, ACs, or serious PAK (OK, maybe just one). Oh and August faust-30s, so no joy there.

[ June 22, 2002, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[xerxes]

Is there a scenario along these lines at the Depot? Sounds like quite the interesting tactical challenge.

[JasonC]

Race Across France is available at the Depot.

[Redwolf]

I do not expect the multiple-MG tanks to be that much more effective in CMBB. Some of the most presing problems will be fixed and one MG firing will be as fine as an infantry MG team, so far so good.

However, there are severge limitations in CMBO's handling of multiple weapons on one vehicle. The hull MG is not really activly engaging units, it just happens to shoot when one enemy units crosses directly in front of the hull, of the hull is rotating over it. The flex MG is -well- more flexible, but not generally useful when battling infantry. In addition, if you do the burst fire MG "fix" of CMBO for two or three MGs on a vehicle, its ammo will be consumed too fast. I do not believe BTS will do that.

Last but not least you don't have target commands for another other than the coax MG. You never have area fire target commands when not in LOS. One of the true strengths of tanks like the Sherman is not rush into LOS of some hedges with gun and three MGs blazing, true area fire with no enemies in LOS yet. CMBB will not allow us to do that.

In a word: I expect the coax MG to be more powerful than in CMBO, getting the full fix as CMBB infantry teams. I do not think hull and other additional MGs will be more useful.

As a result we will have much better self-defense through one MG at a time at an identified target, especially with small-gun tanks. And a tank running out of HE will still be a valuable fighter. However, I do not think we will get the full grasp of offensive tank capabilities.

Will still be fun, of course