Tanks vs Inf

[Tanks R Us]

New player.

I have been playing around with the different scenarios and one thing has me baffled. Infantry seem to have great staying power vs Tanks. The other nite, I pulled a Chaffee within 30m of an Inf Squad in scattered woods. Blasted away at with everything I had to include supporting fire from a Sherman < 100M, a Greyhound < 75M, an Infantry Squad 65M and a .50 Cal [don't remember the range but it was not long]. The German squad was Regular. After three turns I finally moved all armor to < 30M. Still no real effect, the squad took 3 casualties over all the turns. [included an observed 81mm strike]. I figured with all of that firepower, I would break the squad at least.

Question. Can you root Inf out of scattered woods [or other type of terrain] with Tanks or is does it require Inf to close the deal.

[jgdpzr]

There could be a number of variables at play here. One that comes to mind is the possibility that the enemy units were under command of an HQ with morale bonus(es). This makes them much more resilient. Another thing, the units may have been fanatical, which is a randomly assigned variable that can be influenced by the scenario designer. The type of cover the enemy was in may have played a part as well. Even scattered trees can provide enough cover for infantry to survive awhile. Terrain can also play a part. A squad can benefit from its position on a hill for example. If the squad is at the top of a crest, direct HE doesn't have a deep target to fire into and therefore much of its fire may land short or carry over the heads of the unit. Finally, it may have simply been a case of bad luck and the fire was not having the usual effect. I have experienced situations like this numerous times. Other times, just the machine gun fire from a vehicle will panic a unit. This unpredictability can be frustrating, but it can also be rewarding.

Edit:Forgot to ask if the enemy unit was in a foxhole. If it was, that will explain some of their survivability.

[ April 22, 2002, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[CombinedArms]

I would say that the German squad held up better than average under that volume fire--but the result also isn't really unusual, either.

Two things to consider:

1. Scattered trees offers a fair degree of cover. In real life, the Germans would be behind tree trunks, rises in ground, bushes, etc. and trying very hard to be invisible. With luck, they could take that amount of fire and sustain only a few casualties. In general, the infantry in CM will not simply die or flee when a tank starts shooting at them, though when you're on the receiving end of tank-fire it can seem extremely grim.

2. The game engine allows and encourages a very wide degree of variation in the outcome of any given engagement. The next time you attack that squad under identical circumstances, you might kill everyone in it in a couple of turns. The next time, maybe you'll break it after one turn. Next time, no loses at all and the squad kills your Chaffee with a panzerfaust (watch out about getting SO close--there's no real advantage to that).

You can test this effect by replaying a given turn against the AI. Hit alt-A (or command-A on a Mac) when you have a turn full of combat and abort the turn to auto-save. Then rerun the turn several times, hitting alt-A each time. You'll be amazed at how many variants there are of the same outcome, even if the orders are unchanged.

I think this is one of the cool things about the game.

[ April 22, 2002, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Doug Beman]

Tanks, in future, keep your armor farther away than that. German infantry generally have Panzerfausts, and if they were standing firm in the face of such firepower there's a good chance they were strong enough to use them. Also, if your opponent is smart, he'll have dedicated anti-tank units (Panzerschreck, guns, etc) nearby for just such a time. Your fire will be 99% as effective from 200 meters as from 20, and anything you gain in "tank terror" is lost in "tank vulnerability."

Just some friendly advice from your ol'd Uncle Doug.

DjB

[ April 22, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[Mattias]

Sounds fishy somehow..

I set up the same forces as you and time after time all Germans were casualties within 40 seconds..

Perhaps you were carrying blanks

M.

[Doug Beman]

In an ongoing game I stationed a bazooka team (Crack quality but not in C&C range; figure that these factors balance out) near a small house (I figured the house would be an obvious target, but still wanted to use the good LOS available). The enemy proceeded to shell the house with what appeared to be a 150mm infantry gun, a Tiger's 88, and a Panther's 75. Of something like 10 shells in 2minutes, 5 or 6 landed next to the house, within 15 meters of the bazooka team. 1 member of the team was rendered combat-ineffective, but the survivor calmly crawled away from the rubble and into heavier cover.

This kind of thing will happen. The fact that nobody else has duplicated your event shows that it is the exception that proves the rule.

DjB

[Tanks R Us]

Thanks for all of the advice. Agree about not getting too close, I am learning how good the Anti-tank weapons are. I ended up getting close because I blundered onto them with the Chaffee. I am also learning to not get too close to wood lines, period [damn Inf vermin].

[Gen-x87H]

Think combined arms and you will be routing toons soon enough

Tanks + inf + arty.

The total package is the only way to win.

Gen

[Captain Wacky]

Actually I've found that tank are quite useless in multiplayer mode. Infantry is absolutely the key to the game, so you want vehicles that make them blow up real nice. When I play a QB I generally take 2 SP guns to killing inf, and one TD with the best experience possible to defeat enemy AFVs. In buying a tank you fulfill both roles, but not as well as having vehicles specifically designed for the task.

[Redwolf]

Two central issues:

1) ineffective MGs. In reality the combined effect of HE going into positions and MGs cutting down anyone who tries to dodge it would do the real deal

2) for victory in CMBO you usually have the emphasis on knockout points, and a shot up platoon gives much fewer knockout points than a shot up tank of same cost

Issue 1 leads to the overwhelming number of SP guns and close support tanks you see in human-select quickbattles

[JasonC]

There was no point in getting so close. Tanks are about as effective at 500m as at point blank. The MGs get a bit more effective as you get closer, but it is not worth the increased risk from infantry AT weapons. Tanks need LOS to the target, that is all.

In fact, being so close might have prevented some fire, especially from higher caliber weapons. I know Sherman 105s are relunctant to fire HE when any friendlies are near the target, for instance.

HE does most of the damage when tanks shoot at infantry. They will normally pin or break a squad with a single turn's fire with 75mm HE. Or pin the first turn, break the second. Actually KOing every last man is considerably harder than suppressing them, though. They may run away, or they may cower right there.

In either case, an easy way to finish them off is to send a couple of infantry squads into the same body of cover, or to within 40m. The suppressed target will not be able to fire much, will therefore stay suppressed, and your infantry should finish them off rather quickly at close range.

Note that infantry at longer range has far less effect. Infantry is very range sensitive, while tanks aren't range sensitive. Cutting the range by 50-100m will double the effect of infantry, or more, while making little difference to a tank.

The real power of tanks vs. infantry comes from their invunerability when properly used from long range. You don't have to expose anything, so time is irrelevant. Ammo is somewhat more important, but true tanks (as opposed to SP guns) usually have enough MG ammo to chatter way indefinitely, and HE ammo loads are often sizable (especially Allied plain 75mm tanks).

Park opposite and keep firing until all revealed enemies in LOS are heads down. Do not expect to eliminate them outright. Just break them. When enemy reply fire has dropped off to nothing, rush with infantry to some picked body of cover closer to the suppressed enemy targets. If any start firing again, your "overwatching" tanks will suppress them again rapidly enough.

The name of the game is fire ascendency. Fire suppresses the enemy, reduces his volume of fire, which in turn reduces suppression on your own infantry, and increases their volume of fire. The result is a snowball that gathers momentum. From start to finish you should expect the process to take 3-5 minutes, depending on the forces engaged.

Once you get fire ascendency, your infantry will wipe out the broken enemy remnants easily enough, because your infantry can safely close to point blank range if the enemy isn't up and firing. Tanks make that easy, because enemy infantry can't suppress them at all (at range).

But you don't charge in with the tanks, as you seem to have tried. You use them to suppress from range and then charge in with infantry. It is the infantry that will multiply its effectiveness 4 fold or more by getting close.

I hope this helps.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by JasonC:

In fact, being so close might have prevented some fire, especially from higher caliber weapons. I know Sherman 105s are relunctant to fire HE when any friendlies are near the target, for instance.

JasonC is admirably thorough as usual. Just thought I'd add that I once killed my own Priest when I fired it's 105mm at a building that was too close. The backblast destroyed the Priest, which was listed as it's own kill. So keep those tanks and SPs back a bit.

[xerxes]

I've moved afvs in close to infantry numerous times. Despite what's been posted here, a Sherman at 40m is MUCH more effective than a Sherman at 400m. The HE rounds are more accurate, the mg fire is much more intense. Squads don't last long (not even a turn) at close range. I generally bring my HTs in close with the tanks and have infantry in close support. Even if a shreck pops up, it won't get more than 1 shot.

The key is having an ID on the infantry before you close. That way as you close you're also suppressing.

Now if you can drop an arty barrage at the same time you're in the money.

[Doug Beman]

Two central issues:

1) ineffective MGs. In reality the combined effect of HE going into positions and MGs cutting down anyone who tries to dodge it would do the real deal

2) for victory in CMBO you usually have the emphasis on knockout points, and a shot up platoon gives much fewer knockout points than a shot up tank of same cost

Issue 1 leads to the overwhelming number of SP guns and close support tanks you see in human-select quickbattles

If killing tanks yields more victory points, shouldn't human-chosen forces contain a much higher proportion of anti-tank assets? I know that, in a current PBEM, I sure wish I'd chosen more anti-armor assets!

As for issue 1, players probably choose SPguns and CS because a) infantry take&hold ground so killing enemy infantry is important and SPguns and CS tanks were designed specifically to kill infantry. The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of tanks-mounted machineguns is equal to MGs mounted on SPGuns or CS tanks.

DjB

[Tanks R Us]

Let me explain why I was so close.

1)The Chaffee was skirting the woodline in an attempt to flank what I thought was an Armor position. The Inf popped out of the woodline and the "fun" began.

2)The other AFV were crossing an open stretch of ground using the hunt mode and started firing.

3) I finally moved all the armor close because I couldn't believe the Chaffee didn't just drop the squad, especially with some infantry supporting fire.

I liked the suggestion of fire ascendancy. Good concept to keep in mind.

thanks

[Juju]

Originally posted by Tanks R Us:

[damn Inf vermin].

Squishies... Gotta love 'em!

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

If killing tanks yields more victory points, shouldn't human-chosen forces contain a much higher proportion of anti-tank assets? I know that, in a current PBEM, I sure wish I'd chosen more anti-armor assets!

If you get into a fight with a vehicle-loving player who does not understand the scoring, then yes, you can win big time by having strong AT forces, especially Jagdpanther, Jackson, towed guns, zillions of bazookas etc.

However, in environments where people know about the vehicle weakness, they max out in infantry and artilley, and if you invested your points into AT asserts, then you lose because you can't tame all that infantry.

As for issue 1, players probably choose SPguns and CS because a) infantry take&hold ground so killing enemy infantry is important and SPguns and CS tanks were designed specifically to kill infantry. The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of tanks-mounted machineguns is equal to MGs mounted on SPGuns or CS tanks.

That's kind of what I said, however the SP gun MGs have very few ammo, so they are in fact worse.

People in thesegames basically choose the majority of their vehicles by blast*shells/price, and good HC penetration can't hurt.

Besides the MG issues that let real tanks appear not as good as they should, the HC-shooting tanks are almost as precise as things like a 75mm Sherman. This is a result from only applying the muzzle velocity for hit probablity, where in reality things like crew experience etc. would make the CS tank suck when fighting real tanks. If only from **** in pants.

[Doug Beman]

That's kind of what I said, however the SP gun MGs have very few ammo, so they are in fact worse.

People in thesegames basically choose the majority of their vehicles by blast*shells/price, and good HC penetration can't hurt.

True, most SPGuns have very poor MG ammo loads (M7 Priest, a DEDICATED anti-infantry platform, carries SIXTEEN bursts of .50??!??! :mad: ) However, this should make players MORE APT to choose tanks over SPGs, as tanks (at least US) have lots of MG ammo. SPGuns tend to have lower maingun AND MG ammo loads than tanks, plus the fact that they have limited-traverse guns.

Besides the MG issues that let real tanks appear not as good as they should, the HC-shooting tanks are almost as precise as things like a 75mm Sherman. This is a result from only applying the muzzle velocity for hit probablity, where in reality things like crew experience etc. would make the CS tank suck when fighting real tanks. If only from **** in pants.

Please clarify this. Why should CS tanks suck at fighting other tanks, apart from lower muzzle velocity implying worse gun accuracy? If a CS tank is regular-quality, why would it be worse at fighting another tank than a regular-quality tank?

DjB

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Why should CS tanks suck at fighting other tanks, apart from lower muzzle velocity implying worse gun accuracy? If a CS tank is regular-quality, why would it be worse at fighting another tank than a regular-quality tank?

In the last forum battle about the 95mm British HC performance someone posted British reports which reinforced the high penetration that BTS uses. So the sceptics like me had to stop complaining.

However, the report said that the hit chance of this HC round would be 1/6th of the 6 pounder at 1000 meters. In CMBo it is more like 60% or so (too lazy to look now).

In addition, we know that CS tanks have been kept out of tank fighting, for example in Villers-Bocage. Why should they do that if penetration and hit chance is OK? In CMBO instead we see 95mm Cromwells playing Hellcat killing Tigers and Jagdpanthers from front after closing in with their good suspension. Similar issue for M8 HMC, very effective versus armor in CMBO, kills StuGs nicely, better than a Greyhound? So did the Cavaly go StuG hunting with them? No, SP ary.

My personal solution to the mismatch was that it might be a good idea to give the HC-firing tanks an additional penality, and I think that it is not a far fetch to assume that the guys in the CS tanks and SP ary were not trained to shoot at moving targets, or generally how to react when facing enemy tanks. Giving them a lower hit chance against moving targets, and a longer delay to get the first shot off when meeting a tank sounds like a good idea to me to improve fairness and realism.

P.S. why do you say the Priest was a dedicated direct-fire anti-infantry AFV? It is a very clear case of SP ary.

[Doug Beman]

In addition, we know that CS tanks have been kept out of tank fighting, for example in Villers-Bocage. Why should they do that if penetration and hit chance is OK?

For the same reason the US doctrine dictated that medium tanks did not need high anti-tank firepower: doctrine. Also, the HC rounds used by the CS tanks were in very short supply due to their brand-new nature.

P.S. why do you say the Priest was a dedicated direct-fire anti-infantry AFV? It is a very clear case of SP ary.

Please go back and re-read my post, as I did NOT refer to the Priest as a "direct-fire anti-infantry AFV." I called it a "DEDICATED anti-infantry platform," and was wondering why any combat vehicle would have such a paucity of MG ammo, regardless of its primary mission.

DjB

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />P.S. why do you say the Priest was a dedicated direct-fire anti-infantry AFV? It is a very clear case of SP ary.

Please go back and re-read my post, as I did NOT refer to the Priest as a "direct-fire anti-infantry AFV." I called it a "DEDICATED anti-infantry platform," and was wondering why any combat vehicle would have such a paucity of MG ammo, regardless of its primary mission.</font>