Why are we firing rifles at tanks?

[Sgt Joch]

Maybe not everybody used smokeless. I read at least one account by a guy who jumped into Normandy with the 101st. who made a point of mentioning that the Germans had a significant advantage in that they used truly smokeless powder while the Americans apparently only had reduced-smoke powder which put them at a disadvantage.

yes, the issue is discussed in Balkoski at p. 90. Apparently, US infantrymen would try to locate German squads based on where the sound of the MG42 was coming from.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=RDYiS6TzZMQC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=balkoski+beyond+bridgehead&source=bl&ots=AnSvwVDVF1&sig=9n9pKLGsX5eXBZnQY7OnACidwdw&hl=en&ei=35P3TdScDcjq0gHwrpSqCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[A Canadian Cat]

I have also only seen 1 TC casualty from my time playing.

With the demo version I played the Road to Berlin scenario several times. When moving my tanks across the first open field on the left towards the wide opening in the bocage I lost a TC over half the time on the first couple of turns turn from MG fire form the cross roads.

Currently I find that moving in an unbuttoned AFV into a field simply a good way of getting all the enemy to reveal themselves to me. I feel this is rather unrealistic and bordering on "gamey" as things stand.

First and last time I did that I lost two tanks in the first two minutes to an AT gun that they never saw. I spend the next n minutes working away at the edges with tanks and infantry trying to find it.

Sadly it was "found" by one of my squads because it opened up on them with HE rounds. Bet the AI wishes it had the armour cover arch command available to it:)

[Scipio]

Against an unbuttoned tank? Nah, don't need saves of that because we intend it to happen. 200m is reasonably short range for a rifle. Charles' own test shows a high mortality rate of TCs at such ranges.

Ironically, JonS just posted a long interview with a US tank officer (usually a Platoon Leader). Here's an interesting relevant bit:

MH: Did your platoon take part in the breakthrough at St. Lo?

Alford: We sure did! My objective was to move down a road to take some high ground. I saw this as my first offensive tank move against the enemy and a real test of my leadership skills. We moved out after the bombing and found the enemy right where they had been before the bombing. My tanks were moving through a farmyard surrounded by stone buildings. When we went around the farmhouse, there was a company of German infantry deploying in an open field. I swung the automatic turret traverse so the gun was pointing at the enemy and gave the order to open fire. My gunner refused, saying I was mistaken and they were American infantry. Now, they had camouflage suits and "Jerry" helmets, so I repeated the order and added that I could see a whole lot better than he could. This exchange maybe took five seconds. While it was going on, I watched a German soldier fall prone upon the ground and aim his rifle at me. I thought to myself, "I bet he's going to try to shoot me."

MH: Did he try?

Alford: I felt pretty secure because only the top of my head--my eyes and my helmet--were out of the turret, but he was a good shot. The bullet struck the front of my helmet, and the only thing I can compare the feeling to is if someone hit you on the head with a 10-pound sledgehammer. I can't tell you what laws of ballistics or physics were at work, but that bullet went through the steel helmet, then followed the contour of the inner helmet liner across the top of my head and went out the back of the helmet at my neck. It knocked me into the turret. Then my gunner was willing to open fire.

MH: Still, you must have been seriously wounded.

Alford: I was stunned for a second but immediately felt my head expecting to kind blood and brains. The bullet carved some skin from the top of my skull and burned up the stash of toilet paper I kept tucked in the webbing of the liner. I had a hell of a headache for a few days. I got off real light. Two of my tank commanders weren't so lucky. They were also hit by snipers in that farm complex.

Authors: Steinway, Roger

Source: Military History, Oct97, Vol. 14 Issue 4, p46; , 7p, 2 Color Photographs, 6 Black and White Photographs

Document Type: Interview

Subject Terms: ALFORD, James – Interviews, INTERVIEWS

Abstract: Interviews 1st Lieutenant James P. Alford, who lead a platoon of five M4 Sherman tanks through the hedgerows of Normandy in 1944. How did he came to join the United States army; Views on leading a tank platoon in combat; Most dangerous position he had encountered.

Full Text Word Count: 5051

ISSN: 0889-7328

Accession Number: 9710210639

Database: Military & Government Collection

Steve

So, what does we learn from this?

During WWII have people shot with rifles on tanks. TCs have been killed sometimes that way. This single interview is an exemplary evidence.

But something here is obviously wrong modelled, since the own casualties exceed the enemy casualties by far. In realty this woud lead very soon to the order to never ever shoot on a tank with small arms.

So, if the infantry is modelled correct as Steve says, maybe the tanks are spotting to good?

[Charlie Marlow]

So, what does we learn from this?

During WWII have people shot with rifles on tanks. TCs have been killed sometimes that way. This single interview is an exemplary evidence.

But something here is obviously wrong modelled, since the own casualties exceed the enemy casualties by far. In realty this woud lead very soon to the order to never ever shoot on a tank with small arms.

So, if the infantry is modelled correct as Steve says, maybe the tanks are spotting to good?

There may well be something wrong with the modeling, but not for the reasons you state.

You say "But something here is obviously wrong modelled, since the own casualties exceed the enemy casualties by far. In realty this woud lead very soon to the order to never ever shoot on a tank with small arms."

But according to the interview account, 2 tank commanders were killed, and the tanks opened fire on the infantry company. While we don't know the German casualties, I would expect them to be more than 2 from close range fire from a tank platoon.

[Chops]

In the interview Steve posted, Alford mentions that the German Infantry Company was caught in an open field by the American tanks. Seems to me that their only course of action at that point was to try and take out the TC's and get them to button up. Sort an act of desperation and self-preservation. This sounds like an "outlier" situation.

[Scipio]

There is a small difference. The Germans from this interview were alreay and obviously for them discovered by the tanks. To open fire was maybe a good idea in this very situation. But I really wouldn't plant a general rule on this interview.

Anyway, I would prefer to be in command of my troops and decide on my own if they should shoot on a tank or not.

[necramonium]

Just had the same stupid thing happen to me, got my anti tank team all neatly hidden in a building, a Sherman strolls by, i order the anti tank team to take him out, what do they do, they start firing their pistols and rifles towards it, Sherman turns it turret around, BWHAM! And my anti tank team is shot to oblivion...:mad:

[Rokko]

That report reads like the American tanks suprised an German infantry company in the open. Firing small arms at tanks in such a situation seems like a last-ditch desperate move, not something a hidden, dug in and prepared unit would do.

[argie]

Just had the same stupid thing happen to me, got my anti tank team all neatly hidden in a building, a Sherman strolls by, i order the anti tank team to take him out, what do they do, they start firing their pistols and rifles towards it, Sherman turns it turret around, BWHAM! And my anti tank team is shot to oblivion...:mad:

Do you realize that if they had PanzerFausts or PanzerSchreks, the only thing they could fire from inside the building were they small arms, right?

[Chops]

Just had the same stupid thing happen to me, got my anti tank team all neatly hidden in a building, a Sherman strolls by, i order the anti tank team to take him out, what do they do, they start firing their pistols and rifles towards it, Sherman turns it turret around, BWHAM! And my anti tank team is shot to oblivion...:mad:

This may be due to the fact, that in the game, AT weapons cannot be fired from within buildings.

[Stitch]

So, if the infantry is modelled correct as Steve says, maybe the tanks are spotting to good?

Last night I had a Panther probing light woods for a known enemy MG position. It was trading occasional fire with some of my infantry in nearby buildings. The Panther arrived less than 20m from where I knew the MG team was, and I stopped it there for fear of possible enemy AT capabilities further in.

I waited for over a minute there, until the MG team broke and ran, and then the tank fired upon it.

In this case, I do not think tanks spot too good.

[dieseltaylor]

My infantry only fired at unbuttoned tanks or AFVs which actually have people exposed (for instance, an Scout Team took one by one all the guys in a Marder, from behind).

You see there is a correct way to attack AFV's

[Battlefront.com]

Well, we have a typical "kitchen sink" issue here. People are throwing everything into this discussion, relevant or irrelevant Let's try to separate some things here:

1. Did infantry try to pick off TCs in real life? Absolutely.

2. Did infantry have some success at this in real life? Absolutely.

3. Did this sort of fire compel TCs to remain buttoned once they came into contact with enemy infantry? Absolutely.

4. Is there a definite benefit to the infantry if the TC is dead? Absolutely.

5. Are there some times when infantry opening up on an unbuttoned tank is a bad idea? Absolutely.

Anybody that thinks infantry don't open up on TCs in real life need to do more reading. And not just WW2, but other conflicts as well. Israeli doctrine was to have TCs remain unbuttoned and they lost a LOT of TCs during the 1973 conflict IIRC to small arms fire. Which made them rethink the wisdom of being unbuttoned.

The notion that infantry would only fire at an exposed TC (that they thought they could hit) out of desperation is nonsense. There are very, very sound reasons for infantry to fire at a TC because they are the ones most likely to pay in blood if the tank is left unchallenged. Well entrenched infantry would be the most likely to fire, guys out in the open would be the most likely to run (or try to otherwise hide).

But for sure there are situations where infantry should not be firing at unbuttoned tanks. Instead of throwing out all kinds of vague anecdotes, it would be more helpful to try and identify patterns of specific behavior that should be reexamined. Because the request to have infantry never fire at unbuttoned AFVs, ever, is not only in the player's best interest, it is also historically incorrect. Specific situations might be possible for us to code in to the TacAI.

Steve

[Ranger33]

^^ I can appreciate that there are historical and realistic reasons for infantry to fire on unbuttoned tanks, but it just doesn't seem to play out in the game how it would in real life. Every time I notice one of my rifle squads firing on a tank, I have to move them or scratch them off the list, since they are about 15 seconds away from utter destruction.

I don't think it should be done away with completely, but adjustments clearly need to be made. The current infantry behavior in this regard is straight up suicidal.

[sburke]

^^ I can appreciate that there are historical and realistic reasons for infantry to fire on unbuttoned tanks, but it just doesn't seem to play out in the game how it would in real life. Every time I notice one of my rifle squads firing on a tank, I have to move them or scratch them off the list, since they are about 15 seconds away from utter destruction.

I don't think it should be done away with completely, but adjustments clearly need to be made. The current infantry behavior in this regard is straight up suicidal.

I have actually had a fair amount of luck with this. Generally if my infantry assests can force a TC to button up it gives me an edge over the opposing tank. Combining that infantry behavior with a decent At asset can yield decent results. If however they are just opening up with no heavier support weapons, yeah they are soon to be POWs or fertilizer.

[Rocky Balboa]

I don't have a problem with my infantry firing at tanks and giving away my position because I take the time to set short covered arcs to prevent this from happening.

I play mostly WEGO so I have the time to do it but I can imagine it being a pain have to micromanage so much when playing RT...

[Akira]

May be only sniper teams or detached teams on a sniper task should behave like this.

"Shoot to a TC from hidden and reveal my position"

I mean reaveal the position of my entire squad bunched all together to a enemy tank doesn't seem very smart. (Even if it is wroten on my army manual)

Then if you have not separated the sniper team far enough it's your strategy problem.

I think that this is an acceptable solution for all.

Any +1?

[Rocky Balboa]

You can do this now by splitting off a 2 man scout team. Give the mother squad a restricted firing arc and let the scout team spot and snipe. I do this a lot when in defense as I place scouts out in front of my MLRS. Most good defenses are set up this way ....

[Wengart]

Just ran a quick test, 4 with infantry behind bocage, 4 with infantry in houses, and 1 with infantry in a house with a short cover arc.

The infantry in Bocage were only engaged when there were multiple tanks observing them, and then they only suffered light wounds (yellow wounded).

Infantry in houses where engaged and destroyed in all but one instance.l

More to the point of this thread I think, is the instance where a squad of infantry were in a house surrounded by tanks. The closest being 130 meters away and the farthest being 200 meters away. They could move around freely within the house without being spotted, but as soon as I removed the cover arc they engaged the unbuttoned tanks around them, and were all killed.

In all cases the tanks did not spot the infantry until the infantry began firing.

End results:

1 TC casualty

32 infantry casualties

Tried it again

1 TC casualty

26 infantry casualties

[Wengart]

It seems that we're throwing in a historical reality (infantry firing on TCs) without supplying the player other historically accurate options that effect this historically accurate action.

Historically i'm sure that I could (as the company commander) lay out a plan to my platoon commanders who would then brief their subordinates and so on. In this way I could make sure that my infantry knew not to engage enemy armor because we have the field in front of them covered by a Tiger or something, or because they need to fire at enemy infantry for a bit before quickly falling back to a new postion.

In CMx1 this was represented by covered arcs of different types (and iirc troops were much more reluctant to fire on exposed TCs) while in CM:BN we just have to hope that the Tiger shoots before the infantry decide to give away their position.

[Wengart]

Also does anyone know if the tacai can evaluate a situation before making a decision? I know that if they see 3 tanks, a halftrack, and 4 squads of infantry the tacai can prioritize targets and select proper weapons, but can a scout team of 2 men decide that shooting at the infantry right now would be a really bad idea?

[gunnergoz]

Don't know about the Tac AI - I try not to test its smarts too much except where I know what it is likely to do - but I always limit my 2 man scout sections to a very small 360 firing arc so they are not tempted to engage in firefights when I want them as unobtrusive as possible. I find that works well and they don't draw fire as often as they do when they are cocked and locked for all comers at all ranges. I guess the sound of a Garand safety latch switching to "off" carries a long way...

[MikeyD]

For self preservation and concealment purposes, I think infantry should not use small arms against armor

For preservation and concealment purposes they shouldn't be within LOS/LOF of enemy armor at all. If you've got infantry within rifle range of an unbuttoned Panther simply hoping for the best then you made a significant tactical error somewhere. If you want them to hide then order them to 'hide'. Better still, tell them to bug out of their present positions before they're killed and hide behind a very large building.

[JonS]

It seems that we're throwing in a historical reality (infantry firing on TCs) without supplying the player other historically accurate options that effect this historically accurate action.

Historically i'm sure that I could (as the company commander) lay out a plan to my platoon commanders who would then brief their subordinates and so on. In this way I could make sure that my infantry knew not to engage enemy armor because we have the field in front of them covered by a Tiger or something, or because they need to fire at enemy infantry for a bit before quickly falling back to a new postion.

If you can't figure out which orders to issue to achieve that effect, you need to read the manual again. Hint: covered arcs and/or hide and/or target and/or pause and/or quick and/or move and/or face.

But you're right; there is no infantry-not-to-engage-enemy-armor-because-the-field-in-front-is-covered-by-a-Tiger-or-something-or-because-they-need-to-fire-at-enemy-infantry-for-a bit-before-quickly-falling-back-to-a-new-postion order. BFC, FIX OR FUM DOSINK!

In CMx1 this was represented by covered arcs of different types

Wishing it so, don't make it so. In CMx1 there were covered-arcs, and covered-armour-arcs. The first targetted everything, the second targeted only armour. There were no covered-everything-EXCEPT-armour-arcs.

[Battlefront.com]

Don't know about the Tac AI - I try not to test its smarts too much except where I know what it is likely to do - but I always limit my 2 man scout sections to a very small 360 firing arc so they are not tempted to engage in firefights when I want them as unobtrusive as possible. I find that works well and they don't draw fire as often as they do when they are cocked and locked for all comers at all ranges. I guess the sound of a Garand safety latch switching to "off" carries a long way...

v1.01 has the willingness of SMG/Carbine guys to fire at more distant targets toned down a bit. They were a little too eager in v1.00.

Steve