"Tank Riders" Topic

How does your favorite rule set cover their use? I think loading,unloading and capacity are going to be fairly straight forward, along with the infantry's ability to take and receive small arms fire, but I'm more interested in how the tank's movement and firing capabilities are addressed if at all. Also how does aimed anti-armor fire at the tank effect the grunts on the deck?

I imagine it would encourage them to disembark in a hurry! But unless you are keeping track of individual infantry casualties, it shouldn't hurt them. Its unlikely to kill or wound more than one or two men at most I would think…unless it hits one of those external fuel tanks the Russkies are so fond of carrying. Hmmm.

Regarding movement, the extra weight of the tank riders should not make for a huge difference (their weight is quite small compared to the total weight of the tank itself), though the driver might want to avoid making any extreme stunts to make it easier for them to hold on.

Firing abilities should not be normally affected too much, since the passengers should not be causing any hindrance as long as you are firing in the fron 180 degree sector (neither are they likely to be of any help either). If you got to traverse the gun to the rear arc, the tank riders might start getting on the way.

That said, once guns start firing (either way) the tank riders would probably be wise to consider disembarking quickly.

Griefbringer

In Crossfire, my own rule add-ons are as follows, read or ignore!
As per standard Crossfire rules I allow 1 tank to carry 1 Platoon, the Platoon gets a cover bonus (minus 1 hit dice), but only to the tanks front 90' arc, if pinned, I don't allow them to dis-mount until rallied, if suppressed, they dis-mount and are suppressed wherever they are, touching the tank, on the ground. I tend not to let them fire from the tank on the move, and if the tank is hit by A/T fire, I use the standard eff of the gun to determine casulties.
Thats it, very simple I know, but I try to keep all my add-ons 'head mountable'

John

Still sounds too complicated to me. I'd say if the tank takes a hit the infantry dismount, regardless of whether the hit damages the tank, plain and simple. MG, HE or small arms fire would be considered as against the infantry if it were in the open. They could not be pinned ON the tank -- that is they would hit the dirt and be pinned there.

Infantry exposed riding on tanks are easier to kill. If they are suppreseed they jump off the tank.

"I'm more interested in how the tank's movement and firing capabilities are addressed if at all. Also how does aimed anti-armor fire at the tank effect the grunts on the deck?"

In Panzertruppe the tank's movement capabilities are not effected (except for what goes on during loading and unloading).

If the tank is hit and destroyed then the infantry are also eliminated. If the tank is "stunned" then the infantry are dismounted and stunned as well. If the tank is immobilized, or if the hit has no effect on the tank, then the infantry are dismounted but are otherwise uneffected. So no matter the outcome, the infantry do not remain on the tank after the tank (or SP-gun) has taken a hit.

It would probably be more 'realistic' to make a seperate effect roll for the infatry, but this step was left out and the rules for tank riders were kept as close as possible to the rules for infatry riding in/on any vehicle, just to keep the complexity low.

Also, in Panzertruppe the infantry must dismount before the tank fires its main gun.

This is what is says verbatim from my WW2 Eastern Front rules:

"Tank riders may not fire while mounted, count as soft target (no saves) and share the fate of their transport if it is hit. They dismount automatically in Close Assault."

IIRC I based it on Panzerblitz. I don't disallow tanks from firing while carrying tank riders, but if the tank takes a hit, so do the carried infantry. They can also be targetted separately. These are ocmpany sized elements and 30 minute turns though, so a bit more abstract than a 1:1 game.

I don't see why at least some of the riders couldn't fire while on the tank. Of course, if it's moving they won't hit much.

Ask an infantryman if he would even be on a tank to fire a weapon if the tank was under any fire at all…I suspect the answer is he will have bailed out at the first hint of incoming fire and put maximum distance between himself and the vehicle.
I wouldn't allow any fire by vehicle or riders and that riders automatically bail as soon as the vehicle is under fire. Tank riding was a rear area transport tactic, not an assault method, despite there being a few Red Army wet-dreamers out there.

Tank riding was a rear area transport tactic, not an assault method, despite there being a few Red Army wet-dreamers out there.

You got some learning to do.

Read some of the memoirs of Russian tankodesantniki.

As I remember from a fairly recent reading from the Russian history of the War their tank troopers rode into battle, fired their SMG's from their tanks when doing so, and suffered accordingly when hit especially by HE fire though in practice assault fire at the tanks they were riding on was AT therefore limiting the casualties significantly. Their tanks did fire during assault with the riders on board but since it normally was a wave assault, typical of the Red Army of the period, most tank fire was limited to the direct front.

The troopers would get off their assault vehicle when they needed to, from fire, when the vehicle was disabled, or when they arrived at an objective that required infantry to accomplish their goal.

Tank riding was also a rear area transport tactic but it was used during combat assaults on a regular basis, …which is why a specific type of unit was designed to fulfil the task.

Bill

"You got some learning to do.

Read some of the memoirs of Russian tankodesantniki."

I've read quite a few….and frankly, most of them read as pretty unreliable, However, you are correct in that the Russian's are the only army that practiced tank riding in the combat zone,under fire, and then usually only with troops dedicated to that purposes (who, suffered MASSIVE casualty rates as a result), not any old infantry.
I'd like you to come up with any instances of any other nationality doing the same, with troops who were trained to do so..(well, you won't, because there aren't any). I can't think of any other instance where troops rode into combat and fought from tanks, as opposed to just moving up on AFV's prior to dismounting and forming up in safety.

I can't think of any other instance where troops rode into combat and fought from tanks, as opposed to just moving up on AFV's prior to dismounting and forming up in safety

Yes, they often did suffer heavy casualties. But since they used mostly SMGs they were at a disadvantage in crossing open ground and not be able to return effective fire until they got to close to the enemy. Riding on a tank got them across the danger zone as fast as possible. Then their SMGs could bring devastating fire at close range.

Other countries didn't have the manpower or automatic weapons that they could use in this way.

Christot, historical documents from both the Soviet and German armies prove the Russian Army did what they thought they needed to do to win the war against the Germans. I don't think either Mobius or I are suggesting anyone else but the Soviets during WW2 used Tank mounted "assault infantry".

Creating and using "tankodesantniki" was an adaptation born out of need as most who read the Russian accounts of the war understand. Your statements indicate an almost total lack of understanding of the Russian viewpoint, tactical situation, strategic situation, …their abundance of manpower, …and lack of any significant number of infantry fighting vehicles necessary to support direct tank assaults.

They needed to protect their tanks from German infantry close support anti-tank weapons and took the logical step for an Army with an overabundance of manpower, cheap SMGs, dedicated fanatical leadership, and pretty good tanks.

There was no other nation that used that tactic successfully during the war that I am a aware of primarily because most other nations viewed their manpower as a natural resource that needed to be preserved, rather than a disposable resource that needed to be used.

Any rules set needs to reflect the horrendous cost of this tactic, …even though it was very successful at the time it was used. Most of the personal accounts I have read have been backed up with documentation, because the Russians(Soviets at the time)normally research the awarding of decorations just like the Allies did, …which I am sure your attitude suggests you question just because it comes from the old Soviet Union or a rule set you just don't like.

I seriously doubt you have read any of the original Soviet documents, battlefield reports, AAR's, unit diaries, or even official German accounts of battles where the tactic was used.

Bill

I'm not sure about the abundant manpower, well, at the end of the war anyway :)

I take a harsh view of it and any hits on the tank are applied to the infantry as well, with machine guns having no penalties to shoot them.

M,

Riding on a tank got them across the danger zone as fast as possible. Then their SMGs could bring devastating fire at close range.

Not from a moving tank.

If you've ever tired riding on a moving tank you need both hands just to hold. If you tried to fire any kind of weapon, SMG or otherwise, from a moving vehicle, you are either going fall off pretty quickly or spray rounds in a random series of directions, causing some consternation to your colleagues.

Obviously if the tank has stopped then it is possible.

DB

"I seriously doubt you have read any of the original Soviet documents, battlefield reports, AAR's, unit diaries, or even official German accounts of battles where the tactic was used."

Not in the original Russian..Have you?
I've read some in translation…the trouble with a lot of the Soviet stuff written post-war, its pretty impenetrable, and some of it obviously has a distinctly "Heroic Soviet" bias. A great deal of the translating was done by NATO translators its hard to deseminate what is of use and what is the translators selecting what they want their readers (other NATO soldiers and politicians) to hear.
The German accounts ARE interesting, because they talk a lot about Russian infantry ACCOMPANYING tanks, having ridden to the FEBA then being very effective closely following the tanks in an assault. I don't recall any German accounts of Russians actually fighting mounted from tanks.
The various personal accounts that have cropped up in the last 10 years or so, you know, "A machine gunner from Stalingrad to Berlin"etc are pretty worthless, about as useful as a historical document as a "Commando" comic…(although Commando comics have their exalted place..;o)

Read Grechko's (editor) "Official Soviet (Russian) History of the Great Patriotic War" (revised after Stalin's death. (IIstoria Vtoroi Mirovoi Voeni 1939 -1945).

The tactics, training, implementation, unit organization & designations are covered in volumes 6 & 7 of 12 volumes total, if memory serves me correctly. You will need to read Russian or know someone who does, but the tactic is covered in detail.

Bill

Have you read it? in Russian?….I'd love to, it might be brilliant, but at over £300.00 GBP for a copy I'm afraid I'm frankly not that interested in what COULD turn out to be a lot of unsubstantiated Soviet nonsense

When you compare the Russian history with German accounts of the same battles you get a very good picture of what actually happened. The German accounts are really good for the details of troop movements and the Russian accounts are excellent sources for how the terrain was used. There is some natural ego inflation on both sides but I found the Russian attention to detail very accurate in the areas I could cross check with unit histories. The maps are amazingly detailed and the chapters on training and organization worth almost any price. Bill

Obviously if the tank has stopped then it is possible.

Correct.
Actually, they would jump off and assault on foot when close to the objective. Tank riders on the tank would be subject to both enemy bullets and shells and then bullet splash and shell fragments from hits on the tanks.

Tank Rider Evgeni Bessonov (Tank Rider, Greenhill 203)makes it clear that tank riders dismounted as soon as any firing broke out and before if the terrain was close because their function was to screen the tanks from panzefaust or hidden guns and locate targets.. he gives examples of riders staying mounted under fire and in each case it is a result of crass stupidity recognised by the others in th eunit an dresults in disaster.. A single hit on a tank seems to render all riders hors de combat, dead, wounded or shocked.Only one squad of about 6 men rode per tank. Mobility for troops using tanks is another thing. Many pictures show ridiculous numbers of german or russian troops on eachtank – this is when the tank is used as a troop transport well away from the shooting.