Massed tanks--realistic?

[maxm2]

Dear System Administrator:

I am on my lunch break. Honest.

Okay, with that out of the way, one of my loyal opponents (Hi Rich!) often uses the tactic in meeting engagements and assaults of massing almost all his tanks together, waiting for his infantry to pinpoint AT defenses, and then sending the whole flock of tanks forward. Given at least seven or eight tanks, nothing I've come up with can stop the armored horde.

If I mass my own armor in one spot, a wrong guess about where the enemy tanks will show up means I'm dead. If I set up flanking positions on either side of the map, assuming a careful advance on my opponent's part on only one side and some LOS shelter from my flankers on the other side of the map (or distracting troops), I'm dead. Individual AT guns and teams don't even have a chance to get off a second shot when facing six or seven or more tanks---they're targeted and eliminated almost instantly.

Two questions:

1. Any suggestions?

2. Is the mass attack typical of combined arms operations in WWII, and if so, how was it stopped in the real world?

--Max

[Panzer_Meyer]

Hi,

Massing tanks and infantry is the correct way to use tanks. Why do you think the French were overrun so quickly, they dispersed their tanks all along the front.

The advantage of massing tanks is the amount of firepower (guns and MGs) on one spot. SO when you have one AT gun facing 8 tanks, it might get off 2 shots, then be spotted and killed in 5 seconds by all the tanks. Even if you do manage to kill 1 or 2 tanks, he still has 6 more tanks.

To counter this, you have to mass your AT guns, yes I know it's a guess where he'll attack. So dont buy AT guns, but buy tanks and armored vehicles yourself. Mass them togther, behind cover, wait for him to advance and you counter-attack his tanks. Just make sure you don't send out your tanks piece meal, one at a time. If you counter attack, you have to throw everything you got at his advance collumn.

I too use this tactic and work great if executed right in the right spot. When I play as Germans, I usually buy PZ-IVJ and psw251/9, lots of them. I know PZ-IVJ are killed by even rocks, but they are fairly cheap, have turrets and are fairly fast. Plus together with 5 other psw251/9 there are a lot of targets. Or I might go with Pumas too, good gun on the puma, plus it's fast.

So hope that helps a little.

[Lars]

Massed tanks hitting them in the flank.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Yes, massed tanks are realistic.

But they can be defeated by Pak-fronts, layered defenses in-depth, one pak-front after another.

But thats not your problem, you problem is fighting a game where you don't have enough combat firepower to build layered defenses in-depth. So you just have to do the best you can with what you got. Don't blame yourself, blame you higher HQ for not allocating more weapons for your defense sector.

Try using more arty to break up his infantry, forcing him to put his tanks in harms way where you can have 7 guns firing on his tanks.

Fire disicple is very important. During the later years of the war on the Eastern front the Germans had the same problem with the Russians. If the Germans started shooting before the Russians had gotten close, the Russians would use their tanks to suppress the German positions. But if the Germans held their fire until the enemy was in range of all the guns in a defensive position, then they could give the attackers the smack down.

[xerxes]

Beating physically massed tanks is really not hard. You need two tank killing afvs. Send them to each flank out of LOS of the enemy, but able to move 10m to get shots with a wide range of fire. The two tanks should be able to intelock their fire.

Once the armor horde is spotted (not hard). Shift your two killers to positions were they are out of LOS of the horde but can move 10m to get LOS. These positions should be at least 45 degrees off the center facing of the horde (90 degrees is optimal but hard to achieve).

1. Now, move tank #1 just into their LOS with a hunt. Add a reverse. Do another hunt and a reverse.

2. Pause tank#2, hunt into los of the horde, add a reverse.

You should have your two little killers move asymetrically. #1 presents to the horde, pops a shot, horde turns to engage, #1 retreats. Just as this is happening #2 emerges and pops a shot.

If you time it right, the horde will be totally helpless. Once they realize what's going on the horde will either retreat, try to move out of possible LOS of one of your killers, or split up.

-marc s

[Dirtweasle]

These are all real good suggestions. The only thing else I'd try is to rain a little arty down on the bunch to button them up just before your tank killers get into position to fire. This is nice for 81mm mortars and you can switch to smoke quickly if somehow the ambush is blown and you need to mask the tank platoon.

[Stoffel]

another cheap fill up the gap option are minefields!

buy some minefields and place them on spots you think his tanks will pass through

this in combination with a wet underground or better mud gives good results.

[jshandorf]

You need to setup you defense so that it has inter-locking fire.

You problem sounds like he is able to isolate your defenses and kill them piece-meal. That is bad. Inter-locking fire goooood.

Jeff

[Mattias]

Concentration of forces, usually at the very least battalion or company in WWII tanks terms, is so central in armoured tactics that it for all intents and purposes is "the" core consideration.

Concentration and the ability to direct the force flexibly is what paved way for the German, and indeed all, wins in the war.

Dispersion is a cardinal sin right up there with killing your parents, swearing on a Sunday and cheating in CM.

--

Defence in CM tends to be harder than it was in real life since the TacAI reacts much faster to a threat and instantly pinpoints it with all forces in LOS.

M.

[Redwolf]

How can he buy that many tanks? I have to assume this is not a combined arms game.

How does he spot the AT guns? You should be able to get some shots off before they are supressed.

The artillery idea sound good to me, he will get quite some immobilizations. I would have to run some tests to figure the best artillery module to do that, but then, so could you Onboard 3" mortars will have undesired effects as well, and are invisible.

In any case, he cannot have that many other units and he concentrates them in one spot. Run some tanks that have good going in mixed ground and high turn rate (turret or swift turretless) through the other side of the map. Examples would be Pz IV, Panther, Jagdpanther, Cromwell or HVSS Shermans. Even Stuarts and 37-50mm armored cars will do since you will either get flank shots or you make him stop and have your vehicles parked behind cover while they treaten his flanks.

Otherwise I think it is a realistic tactics, and one that works better in CMBO than reality because of absolute spotting. Defending in CMBO is quite hard, especially if you are not under combined arms and Fionn limits.

[c3k]

Yeah,

It was a real life tactic. The massed tank assault reached a zenith with the Israelis in '73. During a battle in the Yom Kippur war in the Sinai, an Israeli battalion/brigade (?) attacked across the open ground in a phalanx. Yep, a phalanx. Several thousand years after Alexander the Great figured it out, the Israelis used it as the penultimate tactical formation.(They depended on a quasi-mathematical approach: what shape will put the most firepower in an area with the least exposed? In this case, it was assumed only the outer most layer of the phalanx would be exposed while closing with the enemy, then the survivors could engage the enemy.)

Of course, the Isrealis were introduced to the Saggar wire-guided anti-tank missile. They lost.

The phalanx has since fallen back out of favor.

Real-life or gamey?

Ken

[Jack Trap]

I think that massed tanks can be handled with relative ease and can be dispatched if you can:

1) Separate and delaminate the enemy's armor from his infantry.

2) Get all of his armor buttoned up.

3) Pick off individual enemy units either on the fringes or through very narrowly framed window's of sight (a mass of buildings usually has several.

Use available smoke opportunities and hit-and-run techniques to withdraw engaged units when they get teamed up on.

Good hunting

[PiggDogg]

Don't forget using hulldown positions in Xerxes' asymetrical AT tactics. In all cases, hull down positions will make your tanks more difficult to hit. :cool:

Further, if you are the Germans, use heavily sloped AFVs such as Hetzers, PzIV/70s, etc. in hull down positions. With a bit of luck, they may get a reprieve and have a shell or two bounce off of them especially if the Allies have low velocity 75s or smaller guns.

Personally, I can't stand PzIVs. They die when spitballs hit them. :eek:

Hellcats are good. Jumbos are supersweet especially when hulldown because they will bounce German shells.

Also, in medium quality games, I personally purchase vet AFVs. They are much more accurate than regulars and will most usually hit regulars first. In tank warfare, he who hits first usually wins.

Cheers, Richard

[Michael Emrys]

During the time period covered by CM:BO, the massed armor concept had become somewhat eclipsed by the combined tank/infantry team. It tends to work somewhat unrealistically well in CM because of the artificial shallowness of the defender's front. Except in operations, it is impossible for a CM defender to set up a defense a couple of clicks in depth.

This is one of the secrets to a successful anti-armor defense. Sure, you may only nail one or two of his tanks before he gets your gun. But then, to get anywhere, he has to do it all over again. Eventually you kill enough of his tanks so that he doesn't have massed armor anymore.

And although the purchasing tables in CM don't quite reflect it, in real life guns (including their crews and prime movers) were only a fraction of the costs of tanks. Because of that, it was possible for the defender to put more guns on a front than the attacker had tanks. Certainly the attacker had the advantage of being able to concentrate his tanks on the schwerepunkt whereas the defender had (usually) to defend his whole front. Still...

Michael

[ March 12, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[IronChef4]

Something that I have learned the hard way is that it is never a good idea to have a vulnerable tank not accompanied by at least one other AFV if you can help it.

[Harry Yeide]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

During the time period covered by CM:BO, the massed armor concept had become somewhat eclipsed by the combined tank/infantry team. It tends to work somewhat unrealistically well in CM because of the artificial shallowness of the defender's front. Except in operations, it is impossible for a CM defender to set up a defense a couple of clicks in depth.

Michael

Actually, when it comes to American tactics, the infantry support tanks began to use "massed" tank action (a mass is relative--say a full platoon insted of a section or even an entire company at one time) MORE frequently as the campaign in Western Europe wore on. The theory was just what one experiences in the game: a bunch of tanks has a better chance of overwhelming the defense. The tank-infantry-artillery team worked so well because it could work so many different ways depending on the situation.

Cheers.

[maxm2]

Thank you all for your very helpful suggestions, and the discussions of armor tactics (gotta read more about that Israeli attack). I really appreciate everyone's feedback, and my opponents can be sure I will be trying them out. And--I can be sure they will come up with a counter tactic. And so it goes....

--Max

"There is no answer. There never was an answer. There's never going to be an answer. THAT'S the answer!" --Stein

[Soddball]

Can I suggest using an entire 81mm mortar spotter to smoke the area they're in, and running bazookas/panzershreks into the smoke melee. That should discourage him quite adequately.

Failing that, if you're playing as Axis, a couple of 37mm Flak guns hidden on a flank will chomp through his Shermans.

[Echo]

Ha! Max, You rotten scoundrel. This will be considered a violation of "international wargaming laws", not to mention espionage, and down right "gamey".

All the rest of you responding to this post will be shot for aiding and abeding the enemy!

(note to self: buy more jeeps next time).

[scoop88]

In "Panzer Battles," by F.W. Von Mellenthin, he talks about mass armor tactics the Germans used. They evolved a formation called the Panzer Bell, a formation of tanks in the shape of a bell. The top of the bell faced the enemy. The top and side edges of the bell were taken by medium tanks. Heavy tanks were in the center of the bell. Infantry in halftracks were at the back, or flat edge, of the bell.

I tried this in a huge scenario that somebody on the board developed to simulate a historiclal mass armor encounter between the British and the Germans outside Caen. Can't remember the name of the scenario and I don't have access to CMBO now to check. Anyway, playing against the AI, with me as the Germans, I found out that the bell worked great against British armor, but well-hidden AT guns picked off the Panzer IVs on the outer edges of the bell, leaving the Tigers in the center with their weaker side armor exposed.

So a good defense against massed armor is to hide some AT guns in woods or rough terrain (if available) on the flanks of the clear terrain and hit the armor from the sides as the tanks roll by.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Harry Yeide:

The theory was just what one experiences in the game: a bunch of tanks has a better chance of overwhelming the defense.

A point I noted in a post to a different thread a week or two back. Yes, it's always better to commit tanks at least two or three at a time rather than singly so that they can cover each other. This way they can bring overwhelming firepower on each enemy position as soon as it reveals itself and subdue it before it can do great harm.

The point is, that after 1943 there were simply too many effective anti-armor weapons on the battlefield for the tanks to accomplish this all by themselves. As you mention, it was a careful balancing of armor, infantry, and artillery that was required to make sustained progresss.

Michael

[ March 13, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[CombinedArms]

One point that hasn't been picked up on yet in the range of good comments above is that you started by mentioning that his infantry is spotting your AT guns (which are then clobbered by his massed tanks). This SHOULD NOT be happening--i.e. infantry should not be routinely spotting your AT guns before they get to shoot at his tanks. I think you should re-examine the way you're distributing your infantry and AT assets.

I assume you're hiding the AT guns in cover. If that's true, tanks and infantry will have a very hard time spotting them until they unhide and shoot. Never shoot at infantry with AT guns unless they're right on top of you (and this normally shouldn't be happenning.) You should have infantry out in front of the AT guns at least 100m in good cover to prevent HIS infantry from spotting or overrunning them and to hold his infantry up. So he has to bring up his tanks to engage your infantry--otherwise his infantry can't go forward. Now your well hidden AT guns, which have fields of fire honed in on spots where his tanks are likely to move to support his infantry, can zero in on those massed tanks, preferably with flank shots. Your ATs are protecting your infantry and your infantry is protecting your ATs.

So, if he likes to mass tanks, so what. You can out-mass him with AT guns. AT guns (even at CM rates) are cheaper than tanks, so try having 12 cheap AT guns to hammer his 8 tanks, well spread out so each one must be separately targeted by tank fire or arty to be killed, but overlapping in the points they target. An unspotted AT can almost always kill at least one tank, so he's the one at the disadvantage in this situation. Believe me, he won't know what hit him if he rolls into the LOS of those babies. I'd probably want to have at least a couple of TDs handy to provide mobile reinforcement. Remember, gun for gun, TDs are also cheaper than tanks.

Many of the tactics suggested above will work against massed tanks. (If I were picking AFVs against this style I'd focus on TDs, since he skimps on the infantry. And against any armored attack I'd be sure to have hidden zooks distributed through all available cover). But I think trumping his massed tanks with multiple AT guns with interlocking fields of fire is definitely the way to go. (Oh, and AT mines to channel him into your AT killing fields can work well, too.)

One more thought. If your opponent likes to play the Germans, chose the Brits and buy a bunch of their six pounder gun. It's cheap, effective against the flanks of most Axis tanks, and usually comes with several tungsten rounds that can kill most Axis AFVs from the front. YOu might mix in a couple of 17 pounder guns which can murder Axis tanks of all types--for places where you think you'll face his tanks head on-- and add a couple of Achilles TDs (or anything packing the 17-pounder) for shoot-and-scoot tactics. Place your piats well. And let him come on with his eight tanks. If you've positioned your units effectively, his armored attack is history. Next time he'll be after you with an all SMG and heavy arty force, and you'll have to evolve a new set of tactics.

[ March 16, 2002, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[PiggDogg]

Don't forget to use keyhole sighting for your AT guns. If the terrain is favorable & the defending AT guns are properly keyhole sighted and covering critical ground, they may engage a tank or two but not be sighted by other enemy forces. Yes, more easily said than done, but quite effective.

Cheers, Richard

[Monty's Double]

Some great advice there. All I would add is that when you have a couple of armoured assets in cover against superior armour, use Move and Reverse rather than Hunt. This works best with allied turreted TDs, as they should move out, get off a couple of shots and be back in cover before the enemy replies. If you use Hunt, the TD will tend to stick out in the open to duke it out. Must say that I'm surprised there's a perceived problem defending. My friends and I have started to give the attacker 10-25% bonus, as we've found that a well sited defence, especially on a small or medium map, is very difficult to shift.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

You should have infantry out in front of the AT guns at least 100mm in good cover to prevent HIS infantry from spotting or overrunning them and to hold his infantry up.

How can I resist commenting on this?

Perhaps you're better off measuring in pixels?

[Added in cause some people still tied to the archaic Imperial system of measure don't even know what a millimetre is...]