Weapons and Warfare Player vs. Player AAR

[Blashy]

Voronezh is taken, I used a fighter to hit the tank once and then used a cheap Italian anti tank unit to deal serious damage and my German troops finished it off. Leningrad unit is brought down to 4 STR.

1 Russian cruiser in the black sea is encircled and brought to STR 2.

I see Allied troops being brought into Turkey to secure the cities.

[ August 03, 2007, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Blashy]

So we can finally continue this AAR. We had to stop until we received a beta update.

Rostov unit is killed but city is not taken, although he can not operate a troop on it, except for a possible transport from Sevastopol, we'll see what Normal Dude chooses to do, but the city will fall next turn .

Sivas, city east of Turkish capital is taken by destroying the unit on it and landing a paratrooper in the city.

The last Turkish city is bombed to 0 and so is Syria (might not be at 0).

I brought 3 Italian BBs and one German cruiser in the Black Sea to take out the two Russian cruisers, one is sunk the other at strength 5.

His cruiser in the Baltic is sunk.

Bad weather prevents the taking of Leningrad.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Voronezh is taken, I used a fighter to hit the tank once and then used a cheap Italian anti tank unit to deal serious damage

anti-tank units get to ATTACK tanks?? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? :confused:

[targul]

Nope they are used both offensively and defensively.

[Guest Mike]

That's seriously weird

[SeaMonkey]

Got to agree with SO here. AT forces with fixed guns for the self propelled type and the deployment difficulties for towed type were much better at defensive operations then offensive.

Attacks were better prosecuted by tanks with their movable gun turrets.

Another SC anomaly?

Don't fear SO, with repetitive attacks for Tanks in WaW this will be somewhat corrected.

Now, if we get two attacks for Tank units, with their mobility and fast striking doctrine, shouldn't we also get that for tactical bombers?

TAC has better speed of deployment and at least an equal versatility, operating in the third dimension.

Wouldn't this capture the true essence of Blitzkrieg, Tanks and dive bombers?

[Guest Mike]

Yeah I envisioned AT guns as providing increased AT defence to adjacent units or something like that - not attacking in their own right.

[Timskorn]

It looks like AT have 2 AP, which is on par with an Army unit, but can be motorized too. I imagined they would start with 1 AP to favor their use as a defensive unit.

We'll have to see how they work though before judgment is made.

On the flip side, they seem to be highly susceptible to infantry attack with only 1 Soft Defense. If you do use them for offense they will become easy targets for any nearby infantry, which in turn may lead players to use them more for defense and/or make sure they are supported properly.

They definitely don't look like they'll replace the role of tanks anyway. Even if you upgrade them fully with AT and MT, making them fast-moving armor-zappers, their SD will always be 1 and therefore susceptible to a common unit.

Seems like it'll work out to where they are used more effectively as a defensive unit. In Blashy's case it doesn't sound like there are any other enemy units nearby so the risk of attacking with his AT isn't there.

[targul]

In a typical attack in Africa they barraged with the Artillery. Fired the Anti tank at those armoured units available and then moved into combat with both tanks and infantry.

BTW they still do it that way.

Anti Tank should be great for cutting down that armour prior to engagement by the infantry. Without it the tanks would just rip infantry to shreads.

I have never really understood why most games made Antitank a passive component. The only game I know of that deployed the Anti Tank correctly was Campaign in North Africa but I doubt many have played that game. It was a huge SPI game it took me and my friend 2 years to complete a game. We did it 3 times.

Tobruk by Avalon Hill also did I good job but they didnt do preemptive expect for fixed fire they did back and forth firing. They also didnt spend alot of time on Anti Tank since it was really a tank battle game.

It took the Germans a week once to stop a single Russian heavy tank in the marshes. It was blocking a necessary trail and the only gun capable of killing it was an 88 and eachtime they set up it shot the 88. Did that twice before they finally killed the tank.

[Guest Mike]

They did not "attack" tank units with anti-tank in Africa.

Rather the Germans would attack British tanks then retire. The British tanks would ten follow up, and hte Germans would retire through a previously placed line of anti-tank guns which would catch the British armour without any infantry or artillery support.

that's called a "feigned flight" - it's been a standard tactic of mobile forces since eth horse lords of Uratu first descended upon the Bablylonians like wolves upon the fold.

Once British armour stopped being so impetuous the tactic became useless, but it served well on a handful of spectacular occasions.

Certainly infantry lacking anti-tank support gets ripped to shreds by armour - as happened a lot in Poland, the Low countries, Russia, France and the desert. Putting anti-tank units with hte infantry does not mean you go out and somehow attack tanks with them tho!!

Anti-tank is not a "passive" component, but it is a defensive one, because anti-tank units have to move, and are normally towed guns - towed guns are best when emplaced and prepared for combat - if you are advancing they are much more vulnerable because tehy will not ahve prepared positions and their transport can be easily KO'ed.

self-propelled guns are, of course, another matter entirely. But even they are not as good as tanks in a mobile battle due to the need to move in order to get significant traverse, and good exponnents of their use understood this and used them appropriately.

US turreted tank destroyers are another class entirely, being essentially tanks and so not subject to any of htese limitations - although their open tops, light armour and US tactical doctrine gave tehm problems of their own.

[targul]

As infantry I only fought tanks once in the early 70's in Cambodia. We fired the anti tank weapons first not waiting for the tanks to attack. I must admit the antitank weapons did no damage to the tanks and once we were out of antitank ammo we ran.

Attacking with infantry while the tanks are still active will quickly result in dead infantry. So unless you fire those antitank guns prior to attacking you are sure making life short for the poor grunt.

While assigned to 1st Arm Div 2/82 Arm in Germany mid 70's we would constantly train with our anti tank using it offensively. It was our job to sneak up close enough to fire our antitank weapons at the opponent. Not to wait for the armor to engage and then we wait behind the armor for them to come to us. Normally we would try to coordinate our fire with the tanks to confuse the enemy armor and make them decide which to target.

Towed Antitank ie jeep mounted guns are very quick and hopefully can close on the opponent using cover to fire. They then quickly get the hell out of dodge. Never actually used this weapon but saw its deployment often during exercises in Germany.

Now I also taught at the Army War College in Carsile in the late 70's. I was a tactical instructor for senior officers. I was a civilian instructor by then. According the the Field Manual at the time antitank was to attempt to destroy all armored vehicles prior to committing infantry. Reason for this is obvious though. With no antitank the infantry cannot harm the tank.

I know in the movies the infantry man runs up and jumps on the tank opens the top and throws in a grenade. There were a few open top vehicles where this might work but most tanks just dont let you do that.

SP guns typically are used by the FO. They stay back and do not engage in the battle directly if they can avoid it. When I was in 1st Cav 1/77 Arty I used them often primarily as bunker busters.

I do not remember ever seeing a tank destroyer anywhere. I am sure they exist but I have not seen them deployed and suspect they are used pretty much like tanks but I have no real knowledge about them.

I am sure they can be used defensively also but all the units I served with where designed for offense so we rarely trained in sitting and waiting for the enemy. We trained to go get him.

[ChrisND]

I'd suggest you start another thread.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by targul:

It took the Germans a week once to stop a single Russian heavy tank in the marshes. It was blocking a necessary trail and the only gun capable of killing it was an 88 and eachtime they set up it shot the 88. Did that twice before they finally killed the tank.

Where was that? Never heard of it, I heard of a KV-1 during barbarossa who held out for a day or two but never that...

[Hubert Cater]

I heard a similar story about a KV-1 that blocked a crossroads or something like that and essentially halted an entire advance for quite some time... is this the same one you were thinking of Kuni?

[Blashy]

A UK corps is permanently destroyed in Turkey, I cut it off the turn before and since USSR is not a cooperative ally it could not get supply.

I took Odessa, he brought the sevastopol corps and opened up the rails connecting the Caucasus and then operated a troop on Odessa which was killed.

I killed the last cruiser in the Black Sea and killed a UK Battleship just over Tobruk. Although I expect my navy in that area to be decimated.

Leningrad still holds due to snow falling and preventing air power to be used. Army was brought down to 4.

[Blashy]

Leningrad is taken and the two units east of it are in fortifications but are not cut off from supply by a Finnish corps so they will need a rescue mission or risk being lost permanently.

A lose a cruiser north of Tobruk and I manage to sink a UK cruiser during my turn.

Siberian troops transfered the previous turn.

No other action.

[ChrisND]

Russia uses the 1941 winter to rebuild her military might, aided by frantic anti-tank tech research - Germany has Tigers!

Iran will joining the war with Russia.

Britian consolidates military forces in Syria after retreating from Turkey.

Britain scores a significant naval victory north of Tobruk, sinking a German battleship and two Italian cruisers at the loss of one cruiser and no other significant damage.

[Blashy]

Iran joins the Allies.

I hit a fighter on the last Turkish city almost killing it.

My Navy is slowly dying as anticipated but they did succeed in their planned duty. But he only sunk ONE cruiser not two, .

The soviet winter was harsh on my troops .

[jon_j_rambo]

I got some cash burning in my pocket, lets ship this puppy.

[Blashy]

I probably have pushed as far as I can in Turkey.

In Russia I kill a unit next to Moscow, bomb Moscow and heavily damage one anti tank unit next to Moscow.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

I heard a similar story about a KV-1 that blocked a crossroads or something like that and essentially halted an entire advance for quite some time... is this the same one you were thinking of Kuni?

Yes it happened to detachment Raus in june 1941.

[Blashy]

I`m moving back towards Ankara in Turkey.

In Russia I took Moscow after the Russians abandoned the capital.

About to lose an Italian Army transport at sea, tried to see if I could sneak it through. Figured it was most likely being blocked.

[Baron]

Targul,

I always wondered how the FO vehicles would survive long enough to accomplish their mission, especially the M113 variation. I presume the armor was to offer some protection from the rolling artillery barrages that were typical of a motor rifle regiment in attack. From everything I've seen though they would be to slow to escape once sighted and they are too big to hide. Infantry would be better at the job but in a fluid battlefield they would be cannon fodder. Am I way off base here? Just wondering is all. I did get to fire an AT4 in OIF, 300 meters right through a door PMI at Paris Island rocks, different weapon but the basics of good marksmanship are the same no matter what you are shooting. You live on the East or West coast? If you ever get in my neck of the woods I'll have a cold one waiting for you I’d really like to talk shop!

[Guest Mike]

Well Targul that's the difference between modern raltively portable AT weapons and anti-tank units.

As an infantryman I aas also trained to attack armour whenever necessary. but I defy you to do it as simply as you've made it sound with an 88mm or 17 pdr AT gun weighing 3 tons.......or even a 75mm PAK 40 weighing a mere 1.4 tons, or a 6 pdr weighing 1.1 tons.

Infantry tank hunters armed with short range disposable weapons are not, IMO, what AT units are representing. They are why you get AT values for infantry nuits.

I'm surprised you've never heard of Tank destroyers - the debate about US tank destroyer doctrine is fairly common here.

US doctrie in WW2 was that tanks and infantry were to avoid combat with enemy tanks - which was the job of hte tank destroyers. A fairly silly idea, right up there with tanks not needing HE to engage infantry or soft rargets beause that's what MG's were for.....

[Blashy]

I'm in retreat mode in Turkey considering all the UK forces seem to be in that area, hehe. I lost a Tank and a Bomber with another tank brought down to 1 strength.

In Russia I should take Volgoda next turn and I am at the gates of Gorky and Voronezh the last one will cost me some units for sure.