Will Inf. be able to ride on tanks ala CMx1

[Vinnart]

Not sure if I missed an answer on this out there, but it would be very didapointing if they could not like in CMx1 Will Infantry be able to ride on top of tanks?

[Sequoia]

Steve said that won't happen in CMBN. Maybe by the Bulge game.

[gibsonm]

That's right it wont be in CM:BN and perhaps even the first module but they do want to get it "in" at some point.

[Destraex1]

Do we really need this before getting to the Russian front? Where the Russians used tanks as virtual APCs.

I agree it would be nice but not essential.

[Battlefront.com]

In Normandy, where progress was often measured in yards and the logistics tails were very short, riding on tanks into combat prone areas wasn't as necessary. And certainly it wasn't wise to do. But after the breakout it became quite common and indeed necessary.

Trust me... I'm not saying it has no place in the Normandy scope, because it does. It's just not that important relatively speaking.

Steve

[Redjac]

True enough. Russian front. German's did this in the desert campaigns too, saw many photos. We all know the famous photo of the paratroopers riding on tigers in the bulge. But Normandy not really done to any significant scale known. Actually many cases of panzers operating without any nearby infantry. Suicidal.

[tyrspawn]

To add to what Steve said, and i'm surprised he didn't say this, the ShockForce games don't represent movement, they represent tactical maneuvering in an area of operations. I.e. the advantage of mechanized infantry is not that they ride into combat in an APC, but that they can transport dismounted infantry into a position to attack quickly, and then provide fire support and supply.

Point is, the "riding on tanks" part of CM games would happen before the mission started, the AOs are too small to represent operational movement. Maybe if they were 10 or 20 km rather than 3 (max).

[Michael Emrys]

On the other hand, the Soviet tank riders definitely rode into battle on the backs of their tanks. Until they were shot off, anyway.

Michael

[noxnoctum]

Sorry but all this talk of tank riders made me think of this... so I was required to post it as it's such a great scene.

[Wiggum]

Point is, the "riding on tanks" part of CM games would happen before the mission started, the AOs are too small to represent operational movement. Maybe if they were 10 or 20 km rather than 3 (max).

But would this not also be the case with infantry riding inside of trucks ?

I think trucks where much more part of "operational movement" then tanks in WW2.

[Redjac]

To add to what Steve said, and i'm surprised he didn't say this, the ShockForce games don't represent movement, they represent tactical maneuvering in an area of operations. I.e. the advantage of mechanized infantry is not that they ride into combat in an APC, but that they can transport dismounted infantry into a position to attack quickly, and then provide fire support and supply.

Point is, the "riding on tanks" part of CM games would happen before the mission started, the AOs are too small to represent operational movement. Maybe if they were 10 or 20 km rather than 3 (max).

He didn't say that because you can't compare modern dismounting drills to what they did in WW2. Some Nations do dismount troops very close to the enemy, others don't.

[akd]

The 2d Armored Division also developed special tactics for use in the hedgerows, but its techniques differed radically from those developed by other divisions within First Army. In mid July, 2d Armored Division began to prepare for its role in Operation Cobra, First Army's offensive designed to rupture the defenses of the German Seventh Army and precipitate a major breakout into the Brittany peninsula and the interior of France. In the Cobra plan, First Army assigned a rapid exploitation mission to Major General Edward H. Brooks of the 2d Armored Division. The tactical challenge facing the 2d Armored was to develop techniques that allowed infantry and armor to work closely together during high-speed maneuvers through the Bocage.

By 25 July, CCA of the 2d Armored and the 22d Infantry had developed a novel way for tanks and infantry to cooperate during fast-moving operations: the infantry rode on the back decks of tanks and only dismounted when the attack met stiff enemy resistance. The overall tactical plan developed by Brigadier General Maurice A. Rose's CCA and the 22d Infantry called for units to attack in three assault waves. The first echelon consisted solely of tanks and relied on its own mobility and firepower, along with supporting artillery, to eliminate enemy positions. A second wave of tanks and infantry closely followed the lead elements. Eight infantrymen rode on the back deck of each Sherman in the second wave. The infantry had two main purposes. They provided tanks in the second wave with local security, and whenever the tanks in the first wave encountered stiff resistance, the infantry dismounted and worked with the lead tanks to conduct a coordinated combined arms attack. The third echelon also consisted of tanks and infantry and had the mission of eliminating positions bypassed or not detected by the leading elements.69

Infantry units learned how best to mount, dismount, and ride on tanks and taught their soldiers how to use the new external telephones mounted on most of CCA's tanks. Infantrymen also found ways to camouflage themselves with vegetation while riding on Shermans. Leaders generally found that infantrymen easily adapted to the new tasks involved in working with armor.70

On the morning of 26 July, the day after the saturation bombing that marked the opening of the Cobra offensive, CCA, applying some of its new techniques, conducted a forward passage of lines through the 30th Infantry Division and attacked southward (see map 4). General Rose's mission was to seize high ground in the vicinity of Hill 193 and le Mesnil-Herman and then establish defensive positions to repel German counterattacks aimed at American follow-on forces. CCA's attack was the type of action most preferred by American commanders, a highly fluid situation in which mobile forces overran or bypassed enemy resistance.71

As a result of their new tactics and the intensive prebattle training period, CCA and the 22d Infantry made spectacular gains during the attack. The combined arms team worked closely together. Artillery observers rode in the lead tanks and brought accurate, indirect fire down on the enemy. Infantry battalion commanders with manpack radios rode in command tanks to better coordinate tankers and riflemen. The commander of the 22d Infantry reported that his soldiers were enthusiastic about riding the Shermans "Russian style." The infantry found that riding on tanks gave them several advantages. The height of the tanks put the riflemen above grazing fire and gave them better observation. Riding on tanks that moved at irregular speeds also made the infantry more difficult targets. In two days, CCA penetrated more than six miles into the German Seventh Army's sector. Cobra's preparatory bombardment, sporadic German resistance, and the coordination and swift execution of CCA's attack resulted in light casualties for the Americans. By nightfall of 27 July, General Rose was on his objective, having lost only 3 tanks and less than 200 men.72

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp#f5

This is not an argument for inclusion, just against the claim that 1.) it didn't happen and 2.) that it was not an effective tactic.

[gibsonm]

He didn't say that because you can't compare modern dismounting drills to what they did in WW2. Some Nations do dismount troops very close to the enemy, others don't.

And if you are in an IFV (as opposed to an APC) the deal is to remain mounted for as long as possible to maintain the momentum, but that’s veering OT.

[Sequoia]

Right, thay want it in. They just don't want to hold up the game for it. They didn't have to hold up the game for a couple of trucks. I want it in too eventually but I'd rather have flamethrowers first.

[tagge]

"My daddy told me a long time ago

Said there's two things son

Two things you should know

And in these two things you must take pride

That's a horse and woman, yeah

Well both of them you ride"

Lynyrd Skynyrd - On The Hunt

Nuthin' bout riding a tank there :-)

[gibsonm]

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp#f5

This is not an argument for inclusion, just against the claim that 1.) it didn't happen and 2.) that it was not an effective tactic.

I’m not sure in which universe:

riding on tanks into combat prone areas wasn't as necessary.

Steve

Means “it didn’t happen”.

As to effectiveness.

Steve’s quote focuses on the Bocage:

And certainly it wasn't wise to do.

Steve

During COBRA / the breakout (the context of your quote):

But after the breakout it became quite common and indeed necessary.

Steve

So I think you are both effectively saying the same thing.

Not that it really matters as its not included.

[tyrspawn]

I'm still not convinced that riding on tanks is an appropriate feature in an AO of 2 to 3 KMs. Operational movement =! tactical maneuvering. I.e. in real life you would be in a road column or traveling overwatch until you reached a FUP at which point the infantry would dismount and attack on foot. The FUP is what happens at the beginning of every CM mission. In CMSF for instance, there is rarely a reason to keep your mech infantry mounted for long.

[JoMac]

To add to what Steve said, and i'm surprised he didn't say this, the ShockForce games don't represent movement, they represent tactical maneuvering in an area of operations. I.e. the advantage of mechanized infantry is not that they ride into combat in an APC, but that they can transport dismounted infantry into a position to attack quickly, and then provide fire support and supply.

Point is, the "riding on tanks" part of CM games would happen before the mission started, the AOs are too small to represent operational movement. Maybe if they were 10 or 20 km rather than 3 (max).

Yes, and you are exactly correct...Riding into a position is done before tactical combat begins. So, it doesnt bother that there are no Infantry riders on Tanks, but if they add it in future modules then thats great too.

Joe

[gibsonm]

I'm still not convinced that riding on tanks is an appropriate feature in an AO of 2 to 3 KMs. Operational movement =! tactical maneuvering. I.e. in real life you would be in a road column or traveling overwatch until you reached a FUP at which point the infantry would dismount and attack on foot. The FUP is what happens at the beginning of every CM mission. In CMSF for instance, there is rarely a reason to keep your mech infantry mounted for long.

Well its up to the player isn’t it.

Personally you wouldn’t see me do it (too exposed, etc.), but I’m a doctrinal type of guy.

But if the player wants to accept the risk to get there faster its their call (of course when 60% are hosed off the tank by the first MG42 that’s his problem too).

That’s not an argument for it being in or out though as even if it were “in” it would be optional.

The bottom line is that people are complaining that the product is “late to market” as it is so I’m sure people would rather it “soon” with no “riders” than later / much later after all the code, animations, exposure, etc. for getting on / off the tank are included just for a small percentage of people to actually use the feature.

[BlackMoria]

The only pictures and videos I have seen of western troops riding atop tanks is the drive through already secured villages/towns and up roads with infantry lolligaggling in relax march mode alongside the armor.

That tells me that tank riding for american and commonwealth forces was more an administrative move type of thing, rather than a rolling into combat sort of thing.

Personal feeling - if the choice is to ride atop a tank into a battle or walk/run/crawl into battle, I opt for the latter. Tanks are bullet magnets...

[akd]

I’m not sure in which universe:

Means “it didn’t happen”.

Point is, the "riding on tanks" part of CM games would happen before the mission started, the AOs are too small to represent operational movement. Maybe if they were 10 or 20 km rather than 3 (max).

Please read entire thread before entering with aggressive responses.

As to effectiveness.

Steve’s quote focuses on the Bocage:

During COBRA / the breakout (the context of your quote):

So I think you are both effectively saying the same thing.

Not that it really matters as its not included.

No, my reference concerns CCA's tactics to overcome bocage defenses, not post-breakout tactics, i.e. the tactics they used to overcome the bocage stalemate and affect the breakout.

[Battlefront.com]

The passage AKD quoted is something I myself came upon when I was researching the issue of tank riders on the Western Front. To me this, and a bunch of other things I found, clearly indicate that in the Normandy situation tank riding at CM's scale was uncommon *but* did happen. In some situations it would have been suicide, but as MarkG points out that should be left up to the player to determine when/if it is a good idea.

The problem with offering this choice to the player is we have to do a pretty good chunk of work to work correctly and look good.

The technical needs aren't massive, but they are pretty involved. The most important thing being new TacAI programming like what to do when under fire, restricting the tank's behavior (like rotating the turret) while there are riders, determining when the tank's needs to operate exceed the practicality of retaining the riders, etc. And I'm sure lots of little goofy situations will crop up that even more specialized code would be needed.

Looking good, unfortunately, is something that takes quite a bit of resources. The models have to be coded with "seats" on the decks in order that the system knows where to put the soldiers. Because there are no real seats we'd likely have to come up with variations where some would be seated x way, others y way, still others standing, etc. And that would in turn require new seated models, which in turn means new tie ins to existing animations. Not to mention the animations for getting guys onto the backs of variable height vehicles and then getting them to settle down into their assigned seats.

Which is why we've set the bar for this feature higher than the historical use. Meaning we are waiting for tank riding to be more relevant before we put in the time to support it.

Steve

[akd]

I'm still not convinced that riding on tanks is an appropriate feature in an AO of 2 to 3 KMs. Operational movement =! tactical maneuvering. I.e. in real life you would be in a road column or traveling overwatch until you reached a FUP at which point the infantry would dismount and attack on foot. The FUP is what happens at the beginning of every CM mission. In CMSF for instance, there is rarely a reason to keep your mech infantry mounted for long.

Yes, and you are exactly correct...Riding into a position is done before tactical combat begins

Joe

The only pictures and videos I have seen of western troops riding atop tanks is the drive through already secured villages/towns and up roads with infantry lolligaggling in relax march mode alongside the armor.

That tells me that tank riding for american and commonwealth forces was more an administrative move type of thing, rather than a rolling into combat sort of thing.

Personal feeling - if the choice is to ride atop a tank into a battle or walk/run/crawl into battle, I opt for the latter. Tanks are bullet magnets...

Please actually read the reference to 2nd AD CCA tactics I posted above. It undermines all these assertions. Does not mean these tactics were routine or applicable to all circumstances, but blanket statements like the above are not valid.

[MikeyD]

There's also the topic of troops sitting on the hoods of jeeps. There are historical photos of jeeps packed with paratroopers like a clown car. But its an uncommon oddity, like seven people riding one mule. Sure it can be done, it may have been attempted a few times, but would you want to make it a regular feature?

That being said, by the time of the Ruhr battles infantry support Shermans could be seen welding handrails and ladders to their rear decks to facilitate troop transport on a tactically significant scale. But the Ruhr's a long way away from Carentan.

[gibsonm]

Please read entire thread before entering with aggressive responses.

Well I’m not sure how you read my disagreeing with you as an aggressive response.

But if you took it that way, please don’t.

I was just quoting your response to Steve.

Steve said it “wasn’t as necessary” and it seemed to me that you interpreted that as a comment to the effect that “it didn’t happen”.

But anyway.