The overwatch TD question (especially British)

[Redwolf]

Tank destroyers in overwatch.

So far I have been very sceptical about the value of adding just one vehicle of any type to my force. Together they are strong, alone they are nothing. I always assume I will loose 1:1 duels. I want the mass of my AFVs (if any) in universal tanks or HE-intensive support vehicles, and as that leaves no points for groups of other vehicles, I usually omit them for more infantry or other robust toys. Also, I dislike thin vehicles in general and I hate being stranded without HE shells.

I see people using single overwatch tank destroyers in many games and I'd like to discuss their value.

I don't really talk about the tough German TDs, I think the value of single Jagdpanthers or Panzer IV/70 is undoubted. They are immune to enough of the Allied stuff that the dueling chances are bent in their favour. They same applies to the Hetzer for many situations. I also think that the Hellcat is a special case, for its speed and its vulnerability against 20mm. I don't say the Hellcat doesn't need discussion, just it needs a seperate disucssion.

But what about the thinner but not particulary fast TDs:

- M10 (M3 medium tank chassis with 76mm gun)

- Wolverine (British M10)

- Achilles (British M10 with 17 pdr)

- M36 (M10 with thicker and faster turret and 90mm gun)

- Archer (reverse mount of 17pdr in thin vehicle)

- Marder and Nashorn

The M36 is clearly better than the others, especially the B1 is more atank than a TD and the Marder and Nashorn are usually not worth getting because better stuff doesn't cost much more.

Quick tests with CMBO reveal that there is no hope whatsoever to shoot at an enemy AFV over a long distance and remain unspotted, like a towed gun can. Also, on one hand it is impossible to move into position without being observed and on the oother hand hiding in scattered trees without getting spotted a few turns afterwards is also doomed to fail. It is too dangerous to have have AFVs short of heavy tanks set up in LOS to the enemy lines. So you are really talking about duels, not shots at unsuspected targets.

Other quick tests make the obvious thing clear, these TDs are toast when -while engaging their high-value intended target- they unexpectedly meet one of the zillions of short-75 or 50mm units on the typical CMBO quickbattle battlefield, not to speak of 37mm flaks, towed or SP. That is what I don't like about thin vehicles, in most cases where you want to engage a juicy target you either can't be sure nothing else is in LOS or you even know there is something and you have to consider the risk. This leads to hesitation and detraction from primary goals for the player.

My initial resistance against any 1:1 duel comes from assuming that I have bad luck. By assuming that every combat probability will be shifted in the opponent's favour, I can make my own plans robust, maybe enough to make them work (haha). Of course, that forbits equal-chances duels.

However, when looking behind the base knockout probabilities, the thirst thing to notice is that a TD may be much cheaper than its victim. If you put a 89 points Archer against a 178 points Tiger in a situation of similar hit and knockout probabilities, your chances of "success" are not 1:1, but 0.66 : 0.33 in your favour that you will come out with a win in points.

It goes without saying this by-point probability buys you nothing if your flank collapses because the only AT-capable unit has been run over. Some situations require a by-unit knockout chance consideration, others require a by-point knockout chance. The latter is especially true before setup, at shopping time.

Another thing to consider is that an overwatch TD will most likely be unbuttoned, it will often be unspotted by the opponent forces at the time it engages and it can choose the terrain it fights from. Whereas a Tiger will usually be busy negotiating realty estate issues with your infantry or narrowing down the cover your support AFVs cowering in.

And I think the real value of tank destroyers, in CMBO and in reality, is not only getting rid of enemy tanks or support vehicles, but as much to keep enemy TDs away, to protect your tanks. Some people seem to think enemy TDs are not worth hunting down if the enemy has no real tanks anymore, since they do not threaten your infantry and they are costly to hunt. However, the real question is whether you have tanks left, not if the enemy has tanks left. So you really want your TDs to be effective when you have tanks, not only when the enemy has tanks. And as always, engaging an enemy unit may not neccessarily mean trying to kill it at the risk of being killed yourself. Especially in the case of enemy overwatch vehicles it might be enough to show your overwatch to keep the enemy unit ineffective in its cover. It really depends on how has to act, who is forced to use his overwatch TDs to stop whatever is just going on the the valley below.

So, is it worth to get that 110 points Achilles?

Or should you invest in a Firefly instead that will work with your support AFVs much better?

Or should you try to get a Churchill VIII which may not have such a high hit probability, but can make a real good overwatch because it is very hard to kill and has the potential to kill everything up to a Jagdpanther, even from very long range? Or a Jumbo and get the freedom to make many more positions on the battlefield accessable by a (quite) high-HE gun.

[Kallimakhos]

Good questions and a lot of them. Easiest way to answer: let the computer pick and do with what you got!

Seriously speaking, here's my 5 cents: I agree that assuming bad luck is allways good tactics. Expecially in tank battles you want to create situations where the odds work for you. So I also play with tank platoons, not single tanks. Also if I want to really test my skills with tanks, I play 3000+ points, large map, armoured and hills of course. These kinds of games really show the value of thinking platoon, and the real value of vanilla Shermans and MarkIV's

And now to overwatching TD:s: this depends much on the scale and side you play, and timefray to some extent. I'd say even a single TD is a bad choise, buy them at least in pairs. Pretty much everything german is best suited for overwatch, all the heavies, and also if you buy or get panthers, or even hetzers, wich are actually just as difficult to kill frontally, just put them on the top of the hill and deny your opponents movability. For manouvering there is little choise, basically MarkIV's and stugs. So playing axis in armoured battles usually the best tactic is to controll the field from high positions, get the flags early and keep a reserve to counter your opponents movements. Pretty simple basically, and tough to beat. Just trust your front plates and protect your flanks.

As you and everybody else knows, playing allied you need to be more active and more cunning. You know that if you get hit, you are dead. Churchils seldom hit anything and Jumbos are... ehm ugly and boring? So you cant just park your tanks or TD's in a good position on your setup zone, you need to peekaboo and move fast to good protected flanking positions. One or two jacksons is allways a good choise, they can't be ignored by anybody (I had just one of them taking out two panthers) so this is my answer to your basic question.

Nevertheless best overall choise is Hellcat, even though you say they are a different discussion. In another recent game my two Hellcats scored seven kills and won the game wich had started really bad for me. Basically anything allied dies one's it is hit, so Hellcats vulnerability is not really an issue. In any case you have to use peeking, a decent 76, multiple lanes and most of all speed to appear in unexpected positions. A Hellcat can run for a rear or flank shot accros the map in two or three turns. And score Another good choise is wolverine, they are also cheap and fast, have lots of tungsten and peak well. Also a good Panther killer.

So basically with allies you can't usually overwatch in the same sense as axis, but you can threat and scare those big tanks to give you some room to manouvre. Or run like hell and hope they don't get you.

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]</p>

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

And now to overwatching TD:s: this depends much on the scale and side you play, and timefray to some extent. I'd say even a single TD is a bad choise, buy them at least in pairs.<hr></blockquote>

Well, that is essentially the key question. Obviously single vehicles suck and pairs are a lot better.

But is the TD overwatch unit worth neglecting the main effort enough to subtract two tanks or platoons from it, to get two overwatch TDs?

And if you decided it is not, is a single TD better than none?

[Ron]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf hates artillery:

Well, that is essentially the key question. Obviously single vehicles suck and pairs are a lot better.

But is the TD overwatch unit worth neglecting the main effort enough to subtract two tanks or platoons from it, to get two overwatch TDs?

And if you decided it is not, is a single TD better than none?<hr></blockquote>

Why are they mutually exclusive? Isn't the role of the overwatching AFVs(TDs in this case) to support the main effort? That's the role I would give them, whether they play an active part or not is another matter but they do have a role to play.

Now on to denying specific areas of maneuver, I agree the German TDs are better suited for this with their increased survivability(usually) when dueling. Allied TDs can do they same but from ambush, they can't just park themselves into a hulldown position and expect to stay there very long. The German TDs aren't totally immune either with tungsten or 17pnders on the field. The different technical aspects of the vehicles require different tactics from the player.

I always use my AFVs in pairs or platoons, whether German or Allied. The AFVs don't have to be "side by side" to be working togther.

Usually I don't have a preference with any TDs, will pick whatever as the mood strikes me or battle conditions influence, and use them with their strengths and weaknesses in mind. All AFVs are vulnerable, it just may require varying tactics to deal with them.

IMO, the Archer and Nashorn are short-changed in CM due to the game's mechanics. The one having to Reverse to engage without the benefits of Hunt and the other's "strength" of long-range fire not properly modelled. In fact I feel, which play has generally confirmed, the Allied 76mm and 17pnder are unequalled at long-range fights(1000m) because the German big tanks are larger targets and easier to hit. In CM the target size and gun velocity seem to matter most in accuracy.

If you are looking for an Allied TD that can fill both roles of AT and infantry support then the Achilles or Jackson would be your best bet, though their HE loadout isn't great as that wasn't their intended purpose. If you don't want to *waste* an AFV in an inactive area then don't, make allowances for that. I am usually flexible and find each battle to be fluid enough that I am not constrained by the perceived proper usage of any AFV. I try to make whatever I have, to the best of its ability, play a role in the battle and serve a purpose. The thin armoured TDs may not be the Biggest and Baddest but they can still kick

For what it's worth....

Ron

[Kallimakhos]

I'd still go for a pair, but that's just a matter of taste.

I agree on Jackson's multiple roles, it has a remarkable HE blast. In one game I had pinned down a Panther between a peeking Hellcat and a hull down Jackson. The Panther took cover from the Jackson behind a small house and bounced of the Hellcats shots with it's front armor. I levelled the house with two shots, and guess what happened next...

[JasonC]

The Allied TDs are great bargains IMO. You either get a 90mm, or a 76mm with high chances of tungsten. Either way you have a capable shooter that can kill most things you will run across, which is exactly what the Allies need in the armor war. You always want at least one "AT shooter" and usually more like half your AFVs. And the TDs do this much more cheaply than Sherman 76s or Fireflies.

As for their use, they stalk. They stay in low ground until the target is identified, and then they engage, but that by no means implies 50-50 "fair fight" duels. Pay attention to turret positioning, facing, and targets engaged by the enemy tanks. If you come into LOS facing in basically the right direction, while he isn't, you are going to get first shot.

You can still lose, but the odds are heavily in your favor, if you get first shot and either tank can kill any plate struck. The tactics are those of old west gunfights - unaware targets, quick "draw", right facing, ranges close enough for high first-round hit probability.

If you have a lot of armor, pair off the AT shooters with vanilla tanks. Lead with the vanilla tanks. Use them to mess up enemy infantry and force the enemy armor to engage, then spring the AT shooter and bag them. Regardless, scout with the infantry of course.

Some tanks have plates strong enough to resist even improved guns from the front. Panthers can be cut down to nearly even in hull down duels, as their turret is more vunerable (to 90mm or tungsten) than the hull is. You can also threaten their sides with the vanilla "wingman" tanks. Tiger Is are easy - all you need is the improved gun.

As for the HE usefulness of TDs once the armor war is over, the Jackson is useful even with only a few HE rounds. The effectiveness of the other types is limited - not much MG ammo (though it is 50 cal, and you can control use by buttoning) and limited blast from a limited supply of HE. But they will still take out one position for you. The real purpose of AT shooters is to keep enemy armor from messing up your own infantry.

Overall, I find the Jackson the most useful US TD, and the Achilles the most useful British one. Fireflies are a reasonable option for the British, despite the fairly high price, because they get a gun that really can kill just about anything. But US Sherman 76s are much more expensive than US TDs, without having the AT effectiveness of 90mm or as much tungsten available as the 76mm types.

And they are not armored enough to justify the cost, either (except the Jumbo). You can pay as much as for a Tiger I and get far weaker armor and gun. On the battlefield, you can afford to risk and trade 100-120 point vanilla Shermans and TDs for 180-200 point German cats (with 3:2 or 2:1 odds). You can't afford to go toe to toe with such beasts just because your Sherman has a 76mm gun, or W armor.

If you are going to try going toe to toe with big cats at even odds, go all the way to gamey and take a Jumbo-76, because nothing less is really worth the inflated prices of improved US tanks. (As already mentioned, Brit Firefly shooters are a reasonable exception).

The more historical Allied way to fight, though, is to take 3-4 AFVs mixed between HE tanks and AT TDs, in place of two ubertanks. With decent engagement tactics and even luck you can trade 'em off, end with an HE tank (or Jackson) left over, and go to town with it afterwards.

[Ex Bellator]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Quick tests with CMBO reveal that there is no hope whatsoever to shoot at an enemy AFV over a long distance and remain unspotted <hr></blockquote>

Redwolf has just hit on one thing that has been nagging away at me but until now I hadn't properly realised it.

After reading RL reports of Archers in action one reason for their sucess was their very small size which enabled them to engage without being spotted, something which CM will not allow to happen it seems.

Can we say for sure that TDs (or any AFVs) cannot fight from cover and stay hidden in this game? It seems a glaring omission to me now, and probably devalues all TDs substantially.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

Can we say for sure that TDs (or any AFVs) cannot fight from cover and stay hidden in this game? It seems a glaring omission to me now, and probably devalues all TDs substantially.<hr></blockquote>

Well, that is the way it is in CMBO.

It is also connected to abolute spotting and unit density on a CMBO battlefield. If you fire with your TD on approaching armour, you probably have lots of other units, especially infantry, in LOS of the TD, and near enough to get the TD's position by sound. Also, CMBO only models hasty camouflage and does not model ambushing vehicles or gun with ranges pre-mesured to reference points, so parking your TD behind trees or in scattered trees doesn't do much good.

Having said that, there seem to be a (real) bug in the game that units, especially or only AFVs, are sometimes spotted (not sound contact) with no unit in LOS, see recent threads on the main forum. If so, it certainly hurts TDs even more.

Anyway, in CMBO you want a scout in front of your TD, which needs to stay in cover and then you have to leave the cover to attack.

[Ex Bellator]

Interesting stuff Redwolf, I now hope the whole spotting routine is investigated and re-worked for CMBB.

One other spotting related thing I can add is that I did a test to find out why those 20mms are so effective at killing AFV's in this game. The reason was that they cannot be spotted in trees at over 300m regardless of how many units are looking and how often the gun has fired. AFV's by themselves cannot see them over 250m. Therefore the 20mm has as many free shots as it takes to wreck the AFV with gun/track hits (2 turns max).

It seems to me that a 20mm which has been constantly blazing away for several minuites should be spotted regardless of the range.

Anyway, sorry for sidelining this interesting thread, please continue.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

Interesting stuff Redwolf, I now hope the whole spotting routine is investigated and re-worked for CMBB.

<hr></blockquote>

No way. Absolute spotting will stay in any case. Serious defensive preparations are also very hard to implement in a wargame of this scale, so no camouflage or pre-measured distances either.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

One other spotting related thing I can add is that I did a test to find out why those 20mms are so effective at killing AFV's in this game. The reason was that they cannot be spotted in trees at over 300m regardless of how many units are looking and how often the gun has fired. AFV's by themselves cannot see them over 250m. Therefore the 20mm has as many free shots as it takes to wreck the AFV with gun/track hits (2 turns max).

<hr></blockquote>

The fact that are so hard to spot is one thing. But the hit probablity is way more important here. You know how to display it in the editor, do you?

[Silvio Manuel]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

20mms are so effective at killing AFV's in this game. The reason was that they cannot be spotted in trees at over 300m regardless of how many units are looking and how often the gun has fired. AFV's by themselves cannot see them over 250m. Therefore the 20mm has as many free shots as it takes to wreck the AFV with gun/track hits (2 turns max).

It seems to me that a 20mm which has been constantly blazing away for several minuites should be spotted regardless of the range.<hr></blockquote>

I agree, I would think someone would eventually get more than Sound Contact? from hearing all that pow-pow-pow-pow. Its gotta spit a muzzle flash like anything else, right?

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

I agree, I would think someone would eventually get more than Sound Contact? from hearing all that pow-pow-pow-pow. Its gotta spit a muzzle flash like anything else, right?<hr></blockquote>

Not neccesarily. Flashes might be very different for different weapons. By default I assume that BTS gets things like these right and that the hard spottability is correct. The flak guns also have a "negative" muzzle brake (whatever that is called), so they wouldn't throw that much dust or snow.

Maybe someone else has definite info, after all weapons like this have been in use for a long time and we might have people amoung us who fired them.

[Ex Bellator]

The hit chance for the gun is pretty irrelevant when the gun can never be seen, even if it is 1% it will hit sooner or later with impunity, unless it runs out of ammo. In my test they aren't hard to spot, they are impossible to spot

[Redwolf]

Returning back to the original question, it is interesting, but not surprising, how much our opinions are based on the games we played so far (as Allies).

Obviously, everyone tries to mass in his main effort and would like to go without extra single vehicles.

But for some it goes without saying that you need security from overwatch TDs (or otherwise deployed only loosly connected to the main effort) is needed, even up to 50% or your armour.

While for others the TDs would comprimise the main effort so much that it is not acceptable or at least must be minimized with great pain (single vehicles are pain).

Several of you seem to be regularily attacked by what I would say is a CMBO timeframe (Axis) tank division, well at least what they would like to have for such an attack. If you are lucky, you get Pz IV. If you are less lucky, you meet Panthers. If you are unlucky, they managed to scrap together some heavies. In general, you seem to see a lof of armour, and a good chunk of expensive armour.

On the other hand, the games I see on the tournamenthouse.com ladder seem much more oriented on infantry, and following that on vehicles that is good in dealing with infantry, which means howitzer vehicles. You generally see mostly cheap vehicles below 85 points and if more expensive they invest in plates, not gun, which means Jumbos or thick Churchills. Armour is very fragile in these games with much infantry on a quickbattle map in a 1250-1500 points battle and you need it to be either cheap or very robust. An swift expensive attack vehicle like a Panther or Sherman HVSS is basically pointless. The regular players just know too good how to handle these vehicles, and they come in low numbers, so they have a very hard life, either used so carefully that their effect is compromised or they are lost soon.

As a rection to the howitzer tendency, some players choose only TDs for vehicles and even more infantry, obviously hoping to overcome the enemy by superiour number of infantry alone (on a suitable map), or if the infantry gets threatend by the enemy armour too much, to carefully pick off the enemy howitzer vehicles with their TDs (where the TDs are robust or numerous).

In neither case would such players mix normal tanks and TDs. The (cheap) normal tanks need to come in numbers to gain unit robustness by quantity, and a TD main effort doesn't gain much from normal tanks mixed in, so it is generally either/or. But no mix as the non-ladder gamers seem to prefer.

I would be interesting to know if other peopel (especially from said ladder) agree to this view.

[The_Capt]

Hmm, a few opinions

Well I would have to say that TDs are normally bought to counter and armoured threat and usually and HMC or the like is for Infantry support. The reason for this is much like spreading your infantry out when facing arty. CM is such a lethal environment for armour that investment in high value systems is putting a lot of eggs into a single basket. The result is that the loss of the system means a significant loss of points for little gain. The "my KTs is dead, I quit" syndrome a lot of Newbies fall into.

Far better to spend your money a many cheap armour and anti-armour systems and a lot of infantry. For most QBs this will have you covered. I have found on the ladder that people stick with the "safe games". "Village, modx2" ME QB is an example. Little risk and if you have a winning formula you have a good chance at success. It has been very interesting playing the Rumblings of War Tourney because it is by far more realistic. You have forces and you have terrain and weather. And you have to live with them. I know I have beaten some very good players but I can also tell they are thrown off by having to play in odd places.

So if I can suggest anything, it would be to develop tactics and units which can meet any situation. TDs are a case in point. They are very good at long range overwatch yet useless in a low vis or heavy trees area. In these situations a tank would be prefered, more armour, more punch for infantry and armour.

Personally for the vanilla QBs I like to take a risk and buy AT guns for the flanks and overwatch. You run the risk of bad terrain but they can fire from hiding, they are cheaper and they are tougher to kill than a Hellcat. Of course you lose movement.

[xerxes]

I don't like TDs or any other dedicated anti-armor assets that aren't effective against infantry. Dual role units are more expensive but they won't leave you with stranded points that lack targets (if your opponent goes heavy infantry and arty).

But then again I dislike player pick QBs because force selection gambits are too much of the game.

-marc

[Kallimakhos]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by xerxes:

I don't like TDs or any other dedicated anti-armor assets that aren't effective against infantry. Dual role units are more expensive but they won't leave you with stranded points that lack targets (if your opponent goes heavy infantry and arty).

But then again I dislike player pick QBs because force selection gambits are too much of the game.

-marc<hr></blockquote>

Have you tried 3000-5000 armored QB's on a large map (AI or playr picks, I like the former)? These really teach you to value allied TD's.

[Redwolf]

Bump.

We have quite a few new people on this board, what do you think?

My own opinion changed somewhat, too.

[Priest]

I love TDs.

The Achilles is my personal favorite, good mobility and the wonderful 17lber gun.

The trick is that you cannot always sit hull down and fire away like you can with a Hetzer or Jagd series TD.

You have to be mobile and more creative. Flanking, moving, and baiting your enemy to overextend his armour or scare him into not using it at all.

I have to particular things I like to do with TDs or primarily AT tanks. One has already been mentioned, that of putting one AT focused tank or TD with a group of HE oriented tanks. The other thing I like to do is form hunting groups of TD or AT focused tanks and go to work on the enemy armour. Moving as a group I can maximize my firepower in any local region of the battlefield.

Just some ideas.

[Fionn]

No need for overwatch. Keep your tanks in full defilade and then when enemy tanks show up manoeuvre them aggressively and decisively and kill the enemy.

That way most closely matches the way tank should, doctrinally, be used. Sure you'll lose a few crunchies because none of your tanks are sitting on top of the hill doing overwatch but that's a smaller price to pay than losing the tank.

Of course if you've got something truly beefy like a KT or Pershing or IS-2 then you can afford to be lazy and sit on top of the hill in "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" mode .

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Everyone seems to have the view that it is imperative to use tanks or T.D's in pairs at the very least, if not in troop numbers. One thing that doesn't seem to have been considered is the use of terrain to guard the flanks of a single T.D. (say) while ensuring a relatively narrow field of fire is available for your T.D. to respond to threats.

Admitedly, the German T.D's are much more suitable for this but I have just played a game where my solitary JgPz IV/70 took out 2 of my opponents Challenger tanks in a 1,500 point Meeting Engagement. This was mainly because I was able to manoeuvre around a small building and isolate each tank in turn despite them being within approx. 50 metres of each other, so that only one of the Challengers could fire at my T.D. to retaliate. The better sloped armour saved its life once from return fire (but only after it had already fired its killing shot) but both times it was able to make use of the surrounding terrain to protect itself.

The point I'm trying to make is that a single T.D. can still survive and be quite effective even against potential multiple opposing AFV's if terrain is used to its advantage.

Regards

Jim R.

[xerxes]

I often use my allied tanks in close support, keeping them close/following my infantry but in covered terrain. Once an enemy strongpoint is engaged I try and manuever to get a keyhole on squads in the strongpoint.

With lots of my infantry around OPFOR AT teams have a much harder time getting a round off and certainly not two shots.

Then again, I'm different. Actually my doctrine (love saying that) comes from the practical necessity of how to use the typical allied tank-heavy and infantry-light forces found in a lot of scenarios. I normally have limited rifle infantry and some vickers. Not good for taking on mg42's and mechanized axis infantry.

I also always try to occupy good flanking ground. I've had too many battles facing panthers were I just can't kill them frontally with my afvs or my piats.

Scenario play is really quite different then QBs. Probably one of the reasons my player pick QB games results are getting worse and worse when I do happen to play a QB in a tourny (which is rare).

[Redwolf]

Good points, Kanonier.

I am a very statistical player, and I was always pushing numerical advantage to increase my kill changes. I would prefer to buy more regular vehicles over fewer vets, and I would exploit the fact that you can shoot through friendly tanks to get all the guys into LOS (claiming it is fair because on the other hand you don't have a working "move-into-LOS" command).

But recently I found that quite a few players in CM are good in conducting an isolating attack like you describe. And the other way round, when getting single veteran vehicle in scenarios or out of point ratios, I found they actually do better than pure statistics were implying. I "accidentially" nailed quite a few enemy tanks now by veterans getting into single-pair shootouts (also quasi-veterans which means smaller guns with higher rof and better hit probablity). I got punished very badly when moving down a massed tank formation down a road when it got detracted by infantry and at the same time ran into (much fewer) crack M10s and Shermans.

In the months since I started this thread my impression of successful tank combat moved away from the numerical advance theory quite a bit. Reliable LOS out of movement is quite hard to get in CMBO. From my impression the most important tank combat features (as opposed to tactics) are:

- fast turret

- swift movement. It better also be in bad ground conditions

- higher ROF. Smaller guns are really great in any situation where they can penetrate the opponent. In CM you usually have hit probablities where the second or third shot counts, not the first. The usually higher hit probablity of small guns compared to some bigger guns also helps

- suitable TacAI

And suitable TacAI is important. I found that AFVs with slow gun traverse rates (no turret, slow turret, slow hull turn) behave very different from a TacAI standpoint when they are supposed to shoot down a lane where fast-moving targets get in and out of cover quickly. In special, StuG III and Panzer IV/70 are quite useless for a larger number of situations than players assume. Hetzer and Jagdpanther are much better.

[Fionn]

I often use solitary vehicles. So, there are always exceptions to every rule. People who mass their vehicles in platoon groupings just present really big targets for me. It means I can kill more of them more quickly whenever I decide to. Fine by me.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Fionn:

No need for overwatch. Keep your tanks in full defilade and then when enemy tanks show up manoeuvre them aggressively and decisively and kill the enemy.

Pray tell- what if the enemy also keeps his tanks in defilade, and begins to punish your infantry (whether by crunchies, arty, tanks w/ narrow LOS)...possibly forcing your hand to reveal your tanks first (he is then in *your* OODA loop?). If the OPFOR tries to 'maneuver you', what tactic do you use to avoid being slaughtered en masse when you move your tanks to assist (without overwatch) and he then brings out his TDs to prey on your tanks? Would such a situation cause you to use overwatch, despite you comment above...which truthfully I'm sure is not your be-all-end-all doctrine.

To sum up...what is your logic in avoiding AT ambushes while manuevering your armor without overwatch? Thanks in advance!