"Main impact of tanks in combat" Topic

I'm wondering what is the main point of having tanks or assault guns support infantry during an attack.

What is it that tanks etc did in WW2 that really made a difference – in combat.

I know tanks could sometimes break through and wreak havoc on soft targets, and that was great in theory but didn't happen much in the west after 1940.

Is it as simple as the firepower tanks can bring to bear at any point in the enemy line and having armour gives them protection against most enemy weapons.

Which of the tanks weapons are most important? Is it the machineguns or the HE rounds from the main gun?

What other impact could tanks have on the battlefield beyond killing or nearly killing, and therefore scaring, the enemy.

This might all seem obvious but it is important if our rules are to reflect the use of armour properly.

What do people think?

Well Scarper--In WW1 you had flesh blood and bone with perhaps a tin helmet against shells, bullets and barbed wire…In WW2 with tank support infantry losses were a lot lower barbed wire wasn't as much of a nightmare as it was at the Somme or Loos and infantry then had some artillery (ie HE shells) in support---However despite British trials in the 20's on Salibury Plain infantry/tank co-operation was still generally poor (see Goodwood)--The other main impact was in exploitation--Where in WW1 and earlier that was the domain of the horse by WW2 the tanks could go charging off and rout the enemy in the rear areas (France 1940).
The most important weapons of a tank were MGs and Guns--Tanks that only either had guns or MGs ended up being a bit rubbish. So a good balance is needed..

"Which of the tanks weapons are most important? Is it the machineguns or the HE rounds from the main gun?"

In an infantry support role? The machineguns, HE was useful against entrenched point targets, but the on board ammo supplies were very limited. This was stressed in German tactical notes, and crews who expended main gun rounds on soft targets un-necessarily were severely criticised.

Tanks carried many thousands of rounds of MG ammo, but only a few dozen HE rounds and couldn't put down the same sort of barrage fire as artillery or mortars without dedicated ammo resupply (which was why Stugs had armoured ammo vehicles, and e.g. Shermans used for indirect fire usually had dumped ammo available). For dual purpose guns, it was generally a good idea to have some AP ammo as well… HE was handy against emplaced MGs though, but there are accounts of tanks killing scores or even hundreds of exposed enemy troops with MG fire, something which just isn't possible with with HE, and MGs are capable of sustained suppressive fire too.

Obviously if tanks aren't used for purely infantry support, they can do other things too, like drive 200 miles behind enemy lines in a week and utterly dislocate their defensive positions.

Main impact of tanks in combat

Killing people, while making it harder to kill the people in the tank. Also, breaking things.
-Kle.

LOL.

Tanks could move more quickly than infantry on foot. So it was much harder to set up defensive areas. Gaps would be exploited very quickly if the defender was too slow to react.

Tanks didn't so much support for the infantry as the other way round. Tanks were the breakthrough weapon and infantry was there to keep an eye on the enemy and protect them from AT weapons such as bazookas, exploding dogs and suicidal Japanese soldiers.

They were critical in delivering mobility and direct firepower to the army. Combine this with motorized infantry, artillery and aircraft and you get a very potent mix. Troops move more quickly, can exploit more effectively and thanks to radio can coordinate very well.

"Main impact of tanks in combat" is to create a class of horrible little men in the officer's mess who think they are God's gift to warfare, women and Fooshball!

Only movement brings victory – tanks wedded mobility and firepower with the important caveat that it only worked really well when they were part of a team – as Canuck Commander notes, despite what tankies think about themselves, the motorized/armoured infantry and self-propelled artillery are a key part of why tanks can do what they do

Always good to have crunchies around your tank to keep away enemy crunchies with hand held AT weapons.

"Tanks didn't so much support for the infantry as the other way round. Tanks were the breakthrough weapon and infantry was there to keep an eye on the enemy and protect them from AT weapons such as bazookas, exploding dogs and suicidal Japanese soldiers."

It really depends which period of the war you are talking about and the specific operation.

British and Soviet tanks designated for infantry support were literally that – and under the command of the infantry units they were assigned to. Even the mighty panzers got used for infantry support sometimes…

Later in the war tank-infantry teams were more common, but the mix of weaponry had changed by then, as had tactics.

Earlier in the war, that degree of minute tactical co-operation wasn't so necessary and infantry-tank operations below company level really weren't that common.

No doubt our resident modern tankers will chip in at some point – what is the modern pov wrt MGs vs main gun?

"Tanks were the breakthrough weapon"

IIRC that depends on doctrine as well. If you are Zhukov, Shock Armies and artillery are the breakthrough weapons and tanks are for exploitation.

In the infantry support role, the main thing I have seen tanks used for is to provide mobile direct fire artillery against enemy strongpoints, especially MG positions. Most forces on the defensive immediately constricted field fortifications, starting with fighting positions for the unit's MG's. Once dug in well and provided with overhead cover, an MG position was very hard to take out by infantry assault as it could not easily be suppressed by direct fire or my mortars. Tanks offered a chance to move up and place direct fire on the MG position, preferably with HE, but even suppressing fire with the MG could allow the grunts to move out and outflank/assault the position.

Skarper asked:

I'm wondering what is the main point of having tanks or assault guns support infantry during an attack.

The responses already given have been very much in line with the doctrinal position that the role of the tank is "to carry protected firepower forward", and that is entirely reasonable.

I would add that Dave Rowland's historical analysis work, as detailed in his marvellous book "The Stress of Battle", shows that tanks had a suppressive effect on defending machine-guns, which he manages to quantify. He also shows that rapidly advancing tanks could induce a shock effect, especially if they are perceived by the defenders as invulnerable.

Although it is probably applicable at a higher tactical level, another interesting finding of historical analysis was made by my good friend Dr Paul Syms when he tried fitting casualty and force ratio data from the Kursk battles to the linear and square laws of Lanchester's theorem. It appears that, to a close approximation, infantry follow the linear law, and tanks follow the square law. If this is true, then the main benefit of armour would be to permit concentration of force without suffering the countervailing disadvantage of offering a concentration of targets. This fits very well with the traditional views of successful practitioners of armoured warfare about concentration of force.

All the best,

John.

It's pretty simple really – for your "average infantryman" with a rifle & a few grenades – teh tank can kill you but you can't kill the tank, therefore you are going to lose – period.

Even crappy tanks have this if where there is no AT capability on the battlefield, and even the best infantry will cut and run or surrender if put in that position (facing tanks with no AT – Germans at Arras, New Zealanders at El Mrier July 1942, Italians vs Conner's "Raid" – I'm sure you can think of others).

It doesnt' take much to give the infantry some "bottle" – jsut hand out a few molotov cocktails & suddenly they can become as brave as lions despite MC's being mostly useless – but the perception of helplessness is everything, and even a minor chance of striking back can be seized on (assuming they aren't already totally demoralised of course…..).

Depends on the terrain and what kind of enemy force you are up against.

In close terrain, tanks support infantry. In open terrain, infantry supports tanks.

I think Skarper's question is meant to be in the most basic terms.

1) As tanks are immune to small arms fire they are able to supress enemy strongpoints (MG nests and rifle positions)which allows infantry to continue advancing when normally they could not. They do this mostly using their MGs

2) In many ways tanks are horribly blind in closed terrain, and they present a very large target cross section when compared to the average ground pounder. Infantry can protect the tanks from enemy AT weapons, supressing them with their small arms fire, and can often see targets well before the tanks will. Once again the tanks can now continue to advance when normally it would be very dangerous to do it otherwise.

I hope this helps answer your question.

HE was useful against entrenched point targets, but the on board ammo supplies were very limited. This was stressed in German tactical notes, and crews who expended main gun rounds on soft targets un-necessarily were severely criticised.

Didn't ammo load depend upon mission given? In a deliberate attack, I would think tanks would have a higher mix of anti-pers rounds (HE)? Tanks designated as a fire base would certainly be hurling HE, I would imagine.

One advantage tanks have in an assault, accompanying infantry onto the objective, is something a lot of wargamers don't appreciate – height. That coax machine gun is the height of a soldier standing erect or higher. It gives a good position for fire even if the tank is restricted to machine gun fire only.
--
Tim

Excellent answer, Moko.

Moko's answer stresses the importance of communication between the tank and the infantry soldier. US tanks had a phone box on the back so a soldier behind the tank could talk to the crew. You can see an example of this in "The Sands of Iwo Jima" where the marine brings up a flame tank to take out a bunker. The phone box disappears with the removal of the M60 series tank from service.

Thanks – very interesting views.

The question is really basic – sort of a first principles question and I'm glad doctrine and practice were dealt with separately.

Hi Major Mike

And the Phone box reappeared again in Iraq for the M1 in about 2005 due to concerns regarding cooperation between infantry and armour in MOUNT operations.

I seam to remember they had been impressed with the use of the Phone box on the UK Chally 2.

Tanks allowed rapid movement, (harder to respond too) and concentrated fire from a mobile protected platform, far better to break the enemy line allowing flanks to be turned. A far better option than the blood filled infantry charges across no mans land in WWI

"sort of a first principles question "

If you want really first principles, then to echo what John S said above, armoured vehicles can provide extremely high concentrations of violence on narrow and deep fronts without suffering to the same degree as infantry from the negative effects of concentration. They are still vulnerable to enemy fire of course, and need to operate using the principles of fire and movement rather than just rumbling forward in the open and hoping for the best.

In Guderians words 'they attack the full depth of the enemy position' ie they can get to places the infantry can't easily, like artillery positions and HQs, although to get there tactically, is a team effort. The attritional breakthrough phase can of course take days (or weeks) rather than hours, it depends.

So – how to represent this in a wargame?

I'm leaning away from any special rules like having tanks cause some kind of morale effect just by their presence or absence and towards having the mobile firepower of tanks be represented fully.

I've played some rules were tank weapons were quite marginal compared to other weapons systems, so apart from hunting down their counterparts they couldn't really hurt infantry that much.

I think tanks could (in WW2) be very effective against infantry – even in cover – if they had the time and ammunition to spend.

How do the various rules sets that are in use model the firepower of tanks versus infantry and do you think it gets it right?

We find Dave Browns Battlegroup PanzerGrenadier [2 Edition,pub by Partizan Press/Caliver] models this well by having two fire factors one for Anti infantry and one for Anti Armour. Factors are balanced to give effects appropriate to the target.

These effects reward proper tactics and punish poor armour use [e.g. unsupported when attacking large infantry numbers]

"How do the various rules sets that are in use model the firepower of tanks versus infantry"

In Dupuys analysis (Numbers, Predictions and War) a platoon of tanks has rather more firepower than an entire infantry company. This makes tanks very scary, but their performance is very environmentally dependant.

Infantry tend to have more staying power and can go places tank can't. Armour suffers disproportionately higher losses in a shorter space of time in tank battles than infantry do in infantry battles, but armoured units recover their strength faster due to recovery/repair. These are operational rather than tactical considerations of course.

"I'm leaning away from any special rules like having tanks cause some kind of morale effect just by their presence or absence and towards having the mobile firepower of tanks be represented fully."

Having a CII next to me raised my morale a few times in a hot sandy place!

Tally Ho!

Early in WW2 the mere presence of an enemy tank could cause infantry to panic. As the war went on, infantry discovered that tanks did have some shortcomings, such as limited vision when buttoned up. And as hand-held AT weapons became available (better than almost-worthless antitank rifles) the infantry gained even more confidence. Still, in the open, the tank is dominant. In a built-up area, and/or where the ground is soggy or restricted, and especially where the infantry can get real close before being spotted, the tank is vulnerable.

I think tanks could (in WW2) be very effective against infantry – even in cover – if they had the time and ammunition to spend.

I must respecfully disagree, tanks alone are vulnerable to enemy infantry. Buttoned up they have very limited vision, (infantry accomplish this by shooting small arms at the tanks forcing them to button up) and they only survive by using movement to avoid infantry closing on them and destroying them. When blind, like explained above, all the ammo in the world isn't going to save them if they can't see a target to shoot at. BUT this isn't the whole story either……..

I'm leaning away from any special rules like having tanks cause some kind of morale effect just by their presence or absence and towards having the mobile firepower of tanks be represented fully……..(and) How do the various rules sets that are in use model the firepower of tanks versus infantry and do you think it gets it right?

Avoid special rules whenever possible! I agree!

I am in the process of finishing up the design of my own game (Which covers warfare on a tactical level from WWI, through WWII, and into the 1990s) and what you are agonizing over we also did.

Our 'solution', if you want to call it that, was to do nothing and just let the players figure it out! I know sounds weird but hang with me for a second and you'll see why.

A unit, whether it is tanks or infantry, rate of advance slows down when it encounters resistance, and that is ANY KIND of resistance. I came across one reference after another of tanks rates of advance being slowed to a crawl when they encountered just enemy infantry. When the tanks continued to drive straight into the enemy infantry their rate of advance remained at a crawl, even when those same tanks were supported by friendly infantry! Only when the tanks found a weak point and drove past/through the enemy infantry did their rate of advance pick up again. After they had done this the enemy infantry were forced to react and couldn't because they had no hope of keeping up with the tanks.

Guderian didn't drive straight at the French infantry, he drove around them and then past them. SO a real overrun isn't driving through the enemy infantry, instead it is developed through a series of maneuvers carried out by the tanks to cause the situation, described above, to occur.

So play-testers of the game we designed rebelled at first, but prodded by us, with the above statements, they began to maneuver their forces like the real commanders did in WWII. In the end they saw the beauty of the system and started to really like it.

The only concession we did make was a set of 'assault modifiers' specifically pointed at certain situations. For example a minus for the enemy to score a hit is given for having infantry and tanks in the same assault, as they mutually support each other, and it only applies if the enemy doesn't have the same combination. Infantry vs tanks alone in closed terrain are given a bonus to hit modifier that doesn't improve the effectiveness of their AT weaponry, just makes it easier for them to score a hit. There are a few others but I think you get the idea.

Nope, no special rule for tanks, just let the players figure out how to accomplish a true overrun instead of letting the game do it for them.

Well that is my two cents anyways.

ditto bird, interesting point that about the height of a coax mg.

It would be of enough importance to being granted a bonus over an infantry lmg? Maybe it should be granted a bonus against lying infantry, but not against moving infantry?

I think that one needs to closely examine the doctrines of the forces involved.

For Example, British emphasized a cavalry v. Cavalry role for some armour, while they emphasized an infantry support role for another class of tank.

The US emphasized infantry support for their tanks and the destruction of enemy tanks to designated TDs, planes and guns.

So the question is really how do you want your rules to play, and what forces are involved? Ultimately, your game design goals will formulate the answer to this question, along with the scale of game – a skirmish game will have certain rules and a battalion level game another.

Overall, I think that tanks performed a variety of roles in a variety of situations, and that you can't have one rule to suit them all. And you'll never get around two things – the "full table view" that the gamer has, and that ultimately he doesn't really need to care if they get 'killed', as no one really dies and he has no adverse effects.

Maybe the way to do it is punch the players in the nose if their men get hurt – then they'll take it seriously. :)

But depending on the vehicle and the doctrine of the army, you can get a wide variety of correct answers to these questions.

HesseCassel the question is actually more basic then the acual doctrine used by any army.

I'm wondering what is the main point of having tanks or assault guns support infantry during an attack.

As tanks are immune to small arms fire they are able to supress enemy strongpoints (MG nests and rifle positions)which allows infantry to continue advancing when normally they could not. They do this mostly using their MGs

What is it that tanks etc did in WW2 that really made a difference – in combat.

Prior to WWII firepower had exceeded the ability of unprotected infantry to advance in the face of it. The tanks ability to surpress that firepower opened the battlefield up to movement again. (Even the tanks of WWI failed to really break the dead lock as they couldn't advance much beyond the immediate front lines and were vulnerable to a determined counter-attack)

I know tanks could sometimes break through and wreak havoc on soft targets, and that was great in theory but didn't happen much in the west after 1940.

After 1941, actually, the 'newness' of blitzkrieg had worn off and the Allies had learned how to deal with it. Basically a breakthrough in 1940 caused a 'command panic' that the commanders just didn't know how to deal with. By 1942 a breakthrough was accepted as an enemy action and there were a set procedure used to deal with it, therefore no 'command panic'.

Is it as simple as the firepower tanks can bring to bear at any point in the enemy line and having armour gives them protection against most enemy weapons.

In a word, yes.

Which of the tanks weapons are most important? Is it the machineguns or the HE rounds from the main gun?

The MGs as they; (1) Have the most ammunition to be used by the tank; (2) The HE rounds cannot be used in enough volume to truely supress an enemy, the MGs can. HE is most often reserved for engaging hardened enemy positions.

What other impact could tanks have on the battlefield beyond killing or nearly killing, and therefore scaring, the enemy.

Their ability to quickly change their point of attack and keep their opponents off balance in the process.

This might all seem obvious but it is important if our rules are to reflect the use of armour properly.

This doesn't require any special rules. If your game gives tanks armor immunity from enemy small arms fire, allows them to move at a speed that is greater then that of walking infantry, and rates ALL weapons systems equally, then no specail rules are needed.

Everything dealing directly to Doctrine should be left in the players hands, in effect, let the players determine the doctrine of usage as they are the games commanders.

The post above – by moko – really echoes my thoughts. (Does that mean my brain is empty?!)

I'm coming at this from ASL and in that system tanks main guns and MGs are not really very decisive. The MGs usually have less FP than a good infantry squad and cannot be firegrouped to produce the devasting kill stacks that can operate like a death star. Leaders, even armour leaders cannot direct tank MGs, so that's another weakness of the tanks versus the infantry.

But in ASL tanks and even lighter AFVs have 'special effects' that can make them more powerful. A tank in your location – or 'bypassing' it freezes all fire from your units in that location. Tanks can easily get behind your line and cause large losses from 'failure to rout'. These two odd effects combined with quite feeble armament make tank use in ASL aggressive in a way it just wasn't in most of WW2.

How do tanks impact infantry in say FOW or Crossfire? Is it about right or do they get it wrong in some critical way?

How do tanks impact infantry in say FOW or Crossfire?

Can't say about FOW, but IMHO the tank rules are poor in Crossfire. They look like they've been worked out on a scrap of paper 10 minures before the rules went to press.
In my experience the tricky bit of WW2 rules writing is getting the armour infantry interface working. You can get the infantry game to work quite easily and you can get the armour game working well, but getting the 2 to work together is tricky. This results in either the armour being too powerfull and the infantry becoming speed bumps or the infantry are too pwerfull and the tanks are irrelevant.

Don't worry Skarper I get the same echos LOL

Squad Leader was designed as an Infantry Combat Game so the concentration was initially on the infantry aspects of combat. Later they 'stuck in' tanks trying to fit them into a system designed to reflect infantry combat and to a large extent it was a failure, to me (My Opinion). ASL was an attempt to improve the game and fix those problems, sadly the only solution they really came up with were some really weird special rules that 'created' the proper results.

FoW is a bit heavy in favor of the tanks, especially in assaults in closed terrain IF the tanks initiate the assault and the infantry are not dug in, with their MGs (correctly) being deadly at ranged combat. Also FoW is a bit fiddly when it comes to trying to create a combined arms assault Infantry/Tanks with only Soviet Desantniki able to pull it off properly.

The fix, in my mind, for the game I am designing was to rate ALL units combat abilities using the same formulas NO MATTER WHAT and not fudging them one snit. For example a tank with two light MGs has the same firepower rating in the formula as two infantry packed light MGs. By extension a tank platoon of five tanks, and therefore ten light MGs, has the same firepower rating as an MG platoon wih ten light MGs.

The difference comes into play when the tank platoon encounters the MG Platoon. In ranged fire the MG platoon cannot hurt the tanks one bit, but the tanks can hurt the MG platoon. However, as the MG platoon is made up of far more personnel then the tanks, removing them with ranged fire is going to take some time (resistance). The tanks can speed up the process by either moving around the MG platoon, or attempting to assault through them, but in both cases time and distance will be lost (resistance again).

To reflect these factors in the game infantry formations are difficult to eliminate without, usually three to four times the firepower of what the unit itself can throw out (but not always), bringing a good amount of firepower to bear. However, supressing them isn't that difficult. Now while supressed they can still fight however their effectiveness is reduced by about 50%.

Tanks, on the other hand, are real hard to supress with anything short of medium to heavy artillery, but can be taken out by other formations with equal to two times their firepower about half the time.

It is a basic numbers issue. A tank platoon has five tanks in it an infantry platoon fifty men. Take out five tanks and you have wiped out the tank platoon, but the loss of five men in the infantry platoon is only 10% losses.

So in the game tanks are very vulnerable (to the right weapons AT , med Arty, Hvy Arty), but impervious to a whole host of other weapons (small arms, light mortars). In this enviroment, with no special rules written to create it, tanks survive by using their movement and invulnerability to certain weapons to maintain their rate of advance. However, if they are forced to stand and fight their way forward through any resistance their rate of advance drops way off and their potential to suffer losses rises quickly.

Infantry in the game have real low movement compared to tanks, and are threatened by every single weapon available to their opponents! Their suriviability, because they come in packets made up of large numbers, and because they are in general harder to hit, makes their durability in the game second to none (again in most cases). Remember no special rules create this situation it is a simple numbers.

With no special rules when tanks run up against infantry in the game their rate of advance drops way off BECAUSE the tanks are fighting the infantry's battle. Now the tanks can win that battle, but it is going to take valuable time.

However, if the tanks blow past the infantry (not directly through them), they force the infantry to try and play their game of maneuver. Put another way the infantry have to try and attack the tanks in the open and wade through the fire of unsupressed MGs (Anyone remember WWI), it most often this ends up being a bloody mess for the infantry.

With no special rules this is exactly what occurs in the game we are designing.

"Tanks can easily get behind your line and cause large losses from 'failure to rout'. These two odd effects combined with quite feeble armament make tank use in ASL aggressive in a way it just wasn't in most of WW2."

This is actually quite reasonable, outflanking enemy units so they couldn't rout was a basic tactic in SL and just reflects the power of flank attacks. Tank attacks were ideally conducted from a flank, just as infantry ones were.

"Tanks, on the other hand, are real hard to supress with anything short of medium to heavy artillery"

I strongly disagree with this, although it does depend exactly what you mean by 'suppress'. Tanks have to operate with fire and movement just as infsntry do, and an enemy tank forced to pop smoke, relocate or hide behind a terrain obstacle is just as 'suppressed' as an infantry platoon pinned down by mortar fire. It firepower is temporarily rendered useless while it hides/moves.

The only tanks immune to this type of suppresion are those so heavily armoured that nothing can destroy them, not many of those in WW2 apart from particular types for brief periods.

In the light of 'Black Powder' I have been considering when do you need a 'different' rule set. I must start a thread on it. Many of the ideas I am havin are off the wall- more lets try a new way of thinking, rather than a set position. One of the things is that while Tanks are the 'replacement of cavalry', in actual fact they are used differently. What they are is SP artillery/mobile pill-boxes

Tanks on their own don't defeat infantry. They make the area untenable, yes, but given the restricted visability of a 'pre modern' tank it cant really defeat them, especially in ground that isn't open. Infantry with no AT can't hurt the armour, but the armour can not stop the infantry from vacating, or even just laying low. If the ground isn't taken by men on foot, as soon as the tanks move on the unharmed infantry can re-occupy.

It seems to me that a tank's coaxial MG should rank as a MMG, since it is on a nice stable platform (at least as good as a tripod) and even has (usually) a telescopic sight. Not to mention lots of ammunition. The hull MG, I would rate as an LMG, I suppose.

I strongly disagree with this, although it does depend exactly what you mean by 'suppress'. Tanks have to operate with fire and movement just as infsntry do, and an enemy tank forced to pop smoke, relocate or hide behind a terrain obstacle is just as 'suppressed' as an infantry platoon pinned down by mortar fire. It firepower is temporarily rendered useless while it hides/moves.

I was speaking specifically about the game I am in the process of designing, were in, only effective AT fire, medium artillery (which includes rockets/mortars of 100mm and up), and heavy artillery fires, are able to supress tanks, again in game terms. As with infantry supression in the game would be whatever would cause a 50% drop in the units firepower over the course of a turn, relocation and the popping of smoke would do this.

If this casued confusion Martan I apologize.

It seems to me that a tank's coaxial MG should rank as a MMG, since it is on a nice stable platform (at least as good as a tripod) and even has (usually) a telescopic sight. Not to mention lots of ammunition. The hull MG, I would rate as an LMG, I suppose.

Once again I caused my own problems with the words I used in reference to just an example. I agree Don, mostly because of the ammunition and stable mount examples you gave. In the game I am designing tank MGs are treated as MMGs not LMGs. I only used LMGs in the example above to make a point, alibiet poorly done.

Once again sorry for the confusion I caused.

No worries Moko54.

"If the ground isn't taken by men on foot, as soon as the tanks move on the unharmed infantry can re-occupy."

Yes, this is quite hard to model in a game, especially if the models end up pysically touching! In our tactical rules we rule than buttoned up tanks simply cannot see infantry within 25 yards, which gives plenty of scope for the infantry to lie low.

An even harder thing to model is the inability of tanks to hold ground – I've often wondered about this, as in game terms the serried ranks of tank MGs just mow down any infantry attempt to march past them, perhaps it is more a case of infantry infiltrating the area? This will get really serious at night of course.

Interestingly everybody mentions the poor visibility of tanks but then do not illustrate how there rules deal with this factor. Maneouver Group (MG) tackles theis issue in a number of ways, I hope will stir interesting debate.

1. Tanks cannot kill infantry quickly if they are in well prepared position. To save time there is a practical limit in MG to the damage they can inflict in a certain time. Beyond a certain point the opposing player may chose just to cower and suffer no more damage. This then gives a stalemate. If the attacker has any troops and if the enemy force is very small they could even debus a tank crew (claimed to have happend in the israli 6 day war) and sucessfully assult the enemy. Otherwise the attacking tank has problems, they can rush through provided they can get out of harms way quickly (good going with no need for wild manovering). Or stay where they are. They cannot pass through slowly as the infantry will recover and be a potentila threat.

2. Limit the visibilty of the tanks. THIS IS AN APPROXIMATION so please don't lecture me. Some say too much as did 1 ex tank commander. our limits are: unbuttoned 90 degrees, Buttoned up 22.5 deg either side of the gun plus more limits om hull and turret down. This makes players like the real thing very unhappy in close terrain with no infantry support. On the defensive side the infantry will fire small arms to make the tank button up (standard tactic) then stalk the tank(s) in it blind spots.

3. Potential for vehicals to move at very (in wargames terms) high speed, although they are very vulnerable being predicateble targets if seen.

How do tanks impact infantry in say FOW or Crossfire? Is it about right or do they get it wrong in some critical way?

I can't speak to Crossfire, but can to Flames of War.

Tanks are just about immune to any infantry-carried weapon at range. Yes, there are bazookas and PzFausts/PzSchrecks, but those are most effective in the assault phase, not in shooting.

Tanks are generally faster than infantry (with some exceptions).

Now, the assault phase in Flames is a bit different to the systems I'm used to, so I'm going to recap it:
1) move the assaulting platoon(s) into contact.
2) defender conducts defensive fire (heavily reduced if defender is pinned)
3) attacker rolls Quality check for each stand/vehicle, successes = dead defenders on a 1-for-1 basis. Tanks get to make an armor save versus the attacker's AT value (usually 2, but goes up with Engineers (3), Bazookas (4), PzFaust (5), and PzSchreck (6)).
4) Defender rolls Motivation. If passed, defender can counter-attack (step 3).

Tanks assaulting infantry do unpleasant things to them (a Soviet player makes comments about re-greasing his tracks), since non-engineer infantry cannot do anything more than force the tank to bail out. That said, infantry with AT weapons can really put a hurting on tanks when infantry Assault tanks.

After watching numerous movie scenes I am convinced that tanks were most useful in scaring the hell out of the enemy infantry. Anything else was secondary.

After watching numerous movie scenes I am convinced that tanks were most useful in scaring the hell out of the enemy infantry. Anything else was secondary.

My barber told me the same thing and he went to the Presidio School of Hair Design so he should know. MMMmmmmmm.

Yes, this is quite hard to model in a game, especially if the models end up pysically touching! In our tactical rules we rule than buttoned up tanks simply cannot see infantry within 25 yards, which gives plenty of scope for the infantry to lie low.

Good idea for 1-1 games, I like it.

An even harder thing to model is the inability of tanks to hold ground – I've often wondered about this, as in game terms the serried ranks of tank MGs just mow down any infantry attempt to march past them, perhaps it is more a case of infantry infiltrating the area? This will get really serious at night of course.

Ah, it was also something we haggled over trying to reflect in our game, and of course I wanted it done without any special rules.
Our Solution:
1) Units in the game can use two types of fire, Sustained and Normal. On sustained the unit cannot move but gets an increase in its number of shots, thus Tank MGs can really rip into exposed infantry. On normal the unit can fire and can move, in this case tanks have about a 1/3 chance of hurting exposed infantry, and a real good chance of supressing them. (Ok this covers what tanks can really do in the field pretty well, with the required 'no special rule'.)
2) Oppurtunity Fire only occurs if a unit attempts to move past an opposing unit within a specified distance OR the opposing unit is declaring an assault against the Op Firing unit. Op Fire is carried out like normal fire. In this case tanks have a 1/3 chance of stopping the assault as supression in the game only reduces the effectiveness of the assaulting unit, it doesn't stop it. (This didn't sound right, when we first wrote it, but in the game it worked real good so we kept it).
3) We DID have two special rules to reflect tanks in assaults vs infantry that said infantry did not get the bonus shot for their rifles and SMGs vs armored targets AND that tanks did not have to take an assault morale check unless they suffered a potential damaging hit. (All other units checked morale whether they suffered a potential damaging hit or were just hit.) Well we threw these two special rules out just to see what would happen, hey it was a reduction in specaial rules so you know I was for it! Kowabunga!!!!!! Suddenly infantry had a decent chance of driving off tanks when THEY were assaulting them and in the open to boot!

We liked he results

I'd think that infantry in the open are dead meat to tanks, but infantry in hard cover (such as fox holes) are fairly safe, though not able to do much but hunker down until the tanks go away, unless they have a few brave souls with bazookas, PFs, molotov cocktails, etc. willing and able to get REAL up close and personal with several tons of steel.

First a clarifaction, the game we are designing is a platoon/company scale, therefore 'open' terrain contains a lot of incidental cover that infantry can take full advantage of. Folds in the ground, high grass, low brush, a small copse of trees, etc…. This is all cover that foot sloggers can take full advantage of, yet a tank cannot.

Open ground itself isn't flat so most tanks cannot run around at anything near full speed, and in reality have to slow down more then one would think. Also, the grunts are going to throw bullets at the tanks to force them to button up knowing that this is going to greatly reduce the tanks ability to see the them. Now starts a game of hide and seek between five tanks and fifty grunts, armed with some infantry AT weaponry.

The best option for the tanks is to use their speed to get out of dodge and get some distances between them and the infantry before something bad happens. From there they can pop hatches and get a real world view of things, and then more effectively engage the grunts that were stalking them before.

Odd as this may sound but I have come across more then just a few references of unsupported tanks yielding ground to enemy infantry, whom had closed with them, because it was far safer for them to do so.

No doubt a tank is intimidating, but once one realizes that it has weaknesses that grunts on the ground can exploit it becomes far less so. We learned this playing hide and seek with LAWs practicing against M-60s and M-551s.

During the Six Day War the IDF tankers were able to 'scare off' Egyptian grunts just by driving into their ranks and mixing it up with them. The IDF tankers became so convinced that all they had to do was mix it up with the Egyptian grunts to drive them off that they tried the same tactic in the Yom Kippur War. It was a mistake. Not only didn't the Egyptian grunts run away, but they had the audacity to actully hold their ground and fight back (and I am not talking about Sagger missiles)! The Egyptian grunts weren't any better, or worse, armed with AT weaponry in either war, so what was the difference? The Egyptians trained their grunts how to take on tanks up close and personal. The IDF quickly changed tactics and wouldn't let their tankers go off into the blue unsupported in the face of enemy infantry anymore.

High grass, low brush, and small trees will not stop MG bullets, much less HE rounds. You can use them to hide in, but they are not hard cover. Folds in the ground might be better. But again, unless you have a bazooka or the equivalent, all you can do is hide and hope the tanks give up and go away. (Or if you're Sgt. Rock you can leap onto the back of the tank, knock on the commander's hatch, and when he opens up to see what you want, throw a grenade in.) If your in fox holes or trenches, you can call in artillery on your own position and figure you'll probably survive anything but a direct hit -- but then so will the tank.

Ah the old adage cover is concealment but concealment isn't cover.

Moko54 wrote:

Ah the old adage cover is concealment but concealment isn't cover.

Sometimes cover isn't concealment, either:

tinyurl.com/yoflvm

Valuable lesson in practical fieldcraft, that.

All the best,

John.

"I know a dead parrot when I see one and I am looking at one now….."

LOL John

Good Old MP