"Vehicle Ramming: Worth the Rules Overhead?" Topic

Games such as FoW simply ban most vehicle vs vehicle combat. In that system soft vehicles may not initiate an assault and AFVs may not assault (ram) other AFVs. Thus only AFVs may assault/ram soft vehicles.

In your opinion is it worth including even AFV vs Soft Vehicle ramming rules? Did tanks routinely run over soft vehicles in WWII and Iraq? If one includes ramming rules what's the best way to handle relative vehicle characteristics?

In our sci-fi rules we have vehicle vs vehicle combat/ramming since it often includes mechs with arms! But for our near future rules I'm inclined to simply not include them or to allow only AFVs to overrun soft vehicles, perhaps with a chance to immobilize the AFV.

Your opinion on ramming rules in historical settings?

If the rule is there, it will encourage people to do it. Or at least some people.

Sometimes your vehicles may have to shove wrecks/stationery vehicls out of the way. But occuppied vehicles? It's unlikely to happen – it's the artificial nature of alternate turns that make it more likely in a game than in real life. So I wouldn't have a rule to allow ramming.

But 'close assaulting' doesn't necessarily mean ramming, does it? Close-assaulting infantry doesn't mean squashing them – just going in close and using machine guns and anything else to defeat the enemy. You can use the same tactics against other soft targets. Whereas defeating an AFV will generally mean using your main gun against them. Hence the difference.

In some games tanks look like they are in fact ramming, but that is down to the ground scale. The argument is because it was so rare, I can only think of a couple of well documented occasions, it should not be done, a little like the Tiger II apparently destroyed by a 2 Inch Mortar round landing through an open drivers hatch.

But such things did happen. If this is the way of things then should it apply to all rules? In many rules there is a chance (and I have seen it happen once – very very bad/good dice!)that the French Old Guard get repulsed by Prussian Landwehr. It never happened in real life, yet in all rule sets I have played there is a very slight chance it could. So why allow something than never happened but not allow something that actually did happen? Obviously in some rules where one veh = a troop it would be silly and perhaps it may add too much detail but why ban it?

Tally Ho!

Almost always not worth it, perhaps allow it but only by GM decree. Ramming has too high of a chance of throwing a track or damaging the vehicle doing the ram, even if it is a tank running over a light vehicle.

It rarely if ever happened so there is almost no reason to have it in rules except that gamers WANT to be able to do it. And that's a terrible reason for a rule to exist.

Almost always not worth it, perhaps allow it but only by GM decree. Ramming has too high of a chance of throwing a track or damaging the vehicle doing the ram, even if it is a tank running over a light vehicle.

In our current rules (we're talking near dystopian future) all hits are "mutual" and critical hits apply.

Therefore, even a soft vehicle has a small chance of damaging a mighty MBT and that damage can range from mere friction points (ie morale/confusion/light damage) to incremental damage in the form of hit points to serious damage such as a mobility kill.

Since there's also a certain Mad Max quality to the setting I suppose vehicle ramming has its place in this context. And our approach is certainly light hearted. But, as Todd points out, if it's there people will do it. I just don't want it to become standard operating procedure! :-)

I guess the mutual damage rule should relegate it to desperation moves but I thought I'd check with the TMP brain trust anyway.

Well ya know, if you let the defender block bridges with trucks wherein the soldiers have removed crucial engine parts so as to render them immovable, then of course you should allow ramming.

IMO tank ramming was very rare despite some of the Soviet Vets recollections.

The problem is if you include it in a rules system it then becomes a viable tactic and tends to get used excessivley which is really not to be encouraged becasue of its rarity .

Shifting wrecks etc is fine, otherwise I tend to view it as factored into the close assault/overrun system (for those rule systems which allow AFV close assault/overrun).

Once you allow tank drivers to flatten softskins, all sorts of daftness can result, particularly in 1:1 games.

Allow the ramming of vehicles but with a high chance of breakdown (thrown track etc) or entanglement and 'mobility kill' for the rammer…..one or two immobilisation should cure that habit…..

Tankers like to run over and squash stuff. I saw a lot of softskins crushed in Iraq, including a few that where obviosly occupied when it happened. But I am not sure that is really worth the rules needed to make it jappen.

if you really want to ram vehicles togather, play gorka morka.

Owen

Good ideas all!

Perhaps a Mojo roll to ram will limit the craziness (mojo is our version of morale/motivation).

Also, this being a Dystopian future, the victory point system discourages unnecessary losses since human life is cheap while equipment is valuable. Merely destroying an enemy vehicle, even by ramming, is not enough to earn VP.

You asked about in a historical setting, ramming is not a good idea. A dystopian future society, I could easily see it being required… (at least for one side)

I would say some simple rules would be worth it. Don't be afraid to insist the ramming/crushing a mobile vehicle require a challenging driving test in addition to a Mojo test. Of course damage rules for the ramming vehicle should make this a poor tactic except for large, armored vehicles crushing disabled, soft, lighter vehicles.

No.

In Jerusalem during the 1967 Six Day War, a Jordainan Army officer rammed an Israeli M-48 tank with his personal VW Beetle.

It didn't achieve much.

My experience is that players like options, so the rules are nice to have. They don't need to be complex and may or perhaps should make players say "No, that's not worth it", but that still is more positive than a player who feels the rules just won't let them do what they want.

As a side note, from what I've seen ramming usually comes about when players are frustrated and feel there is no other way of stopping a foe. That's the more important item to address.

I have run extensive super-realistic tank combat simulations in World Of Tanks, and I can state with authority that tanks ram each other all the time and it's awesome.

As a guy with armor experience, some thoughts:

Seat belts – Most AFVs don't have them. Makes sudden deceleration unpleasant, even if most of the deformation would be on the soft skin. In Baghdad, I actually put my vest on the bottom of the turret cage in my M1117 because the seat belt was too short to go around it (and I'm "true 25"). We'd had 3 gunners killed in sector by vehicle crashes, and none by armor penetration.

Pushing wrecks – This is a technique similar to a bulldozer, not a bull. You touch the front of your vehicle to the one to be pushed and give it enough throttle for controlled movement. Difference between pushing a cart and running at it full tilt to move it. Road blocks are a lot more effective with a few mines tossed in front of the barrier.

Active soft skins – oddly enough, most folks that are smart enough to operate a jeep have exactly zero interest in being run over by a tank. Odds are they'll do something to avoid that. Machine guns are more effective than running them down – the average tank has several.

You asked about in a historical setting, ramming is not a good idea. A dystopian future society, I could easily see it being required… (at least for one side)

Well, recently I built a time machine and this is definitely an historical setting.

:-)

We do have the rules for it.

They have to be there to account for stupidity like going too fast down a road with a 90 deg bend and not breaking fast enough. Not as complex as it may sound to get the effect. Also it stops bumper to bumper vehicles in coloumn which is not acceptable at our ground scale if you want to survive combat while moving. However you have to be really close or the othet guys engine not running for it to work. Plus it can play hell with your own vehicle particularly if you are about the same size ane weight. Meet a coloum of soft skins and you should be able to run over them. MG moto. If its plausible, you can do it, but make sure its results are plausible. If its not sensible and you lose that is good rules and poor command.

If you are stupid enough to line up a coloum of soft vehicals infront of an enemy AFV with no treat too it it should be reasonable to ram the lot (at some small risk).
In MG you don't do stupid things as it hurts, saves zillions of stupid rules. Also helps generate "friction" without extra rules.

I actually did this at Ft Knox many years ago.
OK – it was a computer sim – but still.
We got nailed by arty and suffered this:
Commander killed.
Gunner killed.
Driver alive but "blind"
Loader (me) no injuries.

The victim just backed up and shot us.

If your game has sufficient high rate of fire include it. If you might get only one shot per turn, then no. The reason is that with a high rate of fire the ramming vehicle should be subject to a number of shots to dissuade him from trying. We have AFV ramming rules in Panzer War but it requires a morale check first and that is usually the result of some crew loss or gun damage. The wounded AFV usually never makes it to its intended target as it will probably take more hits first.

Yeah, there's a type of op-fire in the game and there's definitely a chance for the rammer to be shot up prior to contact if the target is "ready".

I like the morale check idea and have added that to the rules (must pass mojo roll to initiate ram).

Ramming no, but crushing yes. Standard practice against dug in infantry because up close, you can't see 'em, much less bring an MG to bear.

One of the reasons I tossed one well known rule set was the silly rule that tanks could not overrun A/T guns but had to sit there and take it!
link
One of the first known encounters with a T-34 was by the 17th Panzer Division, which spotted it near the Dniepr River. The T-34 crushed a 37 mm anti-tank gun, blew up two Panzer IIs, and went on to leave nine more miles of destruction in its wake before being destroyed at close range by a howitzer.
link

Some great fotos there-thanks for posting #4!

I included a ram in my SCI-FI rules to allow for this kind of activity. However I think ramming vehicle to vehicle is probably unusual especially tank to tank. I like those crushing attacks linked by #4, it looks like the tanks had trouble removing themselves from the crushed artillery kit.

Some sources report Soviet tanks being committed to battle with limited or no main gun ammunition in the first days of the invasion. This may explain incidents like the one below:

"One of them [the KVs] got close to a panzer who was stuck in a moody brook. Without hesitation, the black monster just rolled over it, crushing it completely.

At that time, arrived a German howitzer of 105 mm; its commander, seeing the approximation of enemy tanks, ordered to open a continue fire, without causing any damage. One of them [the KVs] get close to 100m of the howitzer, which fired again, and its granate hit the tank with all its strength. The tank stopped as hit by a lightning. "We made it!" thought the gunners. "Yes, we made it!!!", told the captain of the piece. But the expression in their faces suddenly changed when one of them shouted: "It's moving again!!". There was no doubt when the shining caterpillar get close to the howitzer and crushed it as a toy, keep on moving later as nothing would happened. In that battle, the KVs of the 2nd Armoured Division claimed to destroy 40 panzers and 40 guns (most of them anti-tank guns of 37 mm, crushed the same way that the howitzer)."

General Reinhardt, 41st PzKorp, regarding the battle of the Dubissa river on June 23rd 1941

Depends on the rules, actually. If you make conmplicated rules for it, especially if they are "realistic", then no. If you just add that in to the general act of "close combat" then it shouldn't affect anything.

Historically, there is no doubt at all that tanks would often crush and grind trenches and foxholes, and I've read many accounts of the ramming of ATGs in different theaters to say they're all just drama. Crisp in "Brazen Chariots" captured a 10.5 howitzer and crew, and then had his gunner fire a shot into it at point blank range, which achieved the same effect as ramming without the risk of damage to the tank.

I guess it all depends on the skill of the driver, anyway.

So my answer would be "yes, there should be a place in a game system where this is taken into account".

I nearly got run down by a T55 in Afghanistan in 1993, I was driving a Red Cross land cruiser, coming back to base after a few whiskeys late one night. bloody thing came from nowhere. but you are right, foot on the gas and no way that thing was going to catch me.

Mechs should slow down movement when ramming vehicles. It should be like when you step on a soda can.

In 1976 I took out a German tank armed only with a 1/2 ton truck….he blinked first and swerved into a ditch. I caught hell for it but 31 years earlier they'd have given me a medal!

Realistic or not, it happened

I love World of Tanks! I ram frequently when the target vehicle is lighter than mine. Sometimes I suffer more damage than the target vehicle.

Allow it but have a chance for some critical damage to both vehicles. (i.e. track, engine, gun ,crew or it just plain catches on fire.) Give a simple modifier for size difference of vehicles. Allow the crew in the target vehicle a skill roll to avoid being hit.

I could see it used in game to pin vehicles in place or prevent a turretless TD from turning to face you.

A buddy of mine had his M1A2 Abrams rear-ended by an Audi in Iraq.

The driver got out of the Audi and yelled at him. Claimed he couldn't see the tank because of the camouflage! (The tank was driving down the lane of a divided boulevard at the time.)

The guy was lucky that my buddy had the presence of mind to tell his driver NOT to step on the gas. The super-heated exhaust of the turbine would probably have cooked the guy in his car!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

One situation we used to get in games fairly often was the 'blown-up tank on a bridge' (generally the one constructed from two Matchbox 'Firefly' bridges and some polyfilla).

In that sort of situation can one tank shove a wreck out of the way or is it more likely to 'climb' than 'push'?