"Morale Effects of Shooting vs AFVs" Topic

Another thread about light mortars vs tanks got me thinking about this issue (again).

Situation: an AFV is crossing no-man's land to attack enemy positions. It begins taking small arms fire pinging off the hull. The crew can hear the explosions of indirect fire just outside. They press on towards their objective…

Excluding an attack that damages the AFV enough to stop it or destroy it, what in your opinion would it take to stop it PURELY through the morale THREAT of damage or destruction?

How best to model this in games?

Obviously the MOST important factor would be crew quality. Small arms fire alone might freak out fearful crews enough to cause them to stop or even fall back. Their imaginations might get the best of them and they might decide that the small arms might mean ATRLs next.

OTOH, even brave professionals might decide that advancing through close terrain covered by small arms would be foolish due to the threat of supporting light AT weapons while ignorant troops would ignore the threat to their own peril.

We saw this in Chechnya when Russian troops disregarded the threat of light AT weapons and lost huge numbers of tanks and IFVs/APCs in the first battles of that conflict. Meanwhile, professional western troops respected the threat of light AT weapons in Iraq and usually pounded infantry threats with their main guns from a distance.

What MODIFYING factors do you feel are most relevant when modeling the morale effects of shooting vs an AFV? Range? Terrain? The size of the weapons involved?

We're assuming that the primary factor is crew quality…so the question is whether or not something like small arms or light weapons alone should be enough to make an MBT think twice about advancing or must the weapon be something that can actually damage the AFV?

For our rules currently in development we set a floor for weapons that can effect an AFV wrt morale but allow such weapons to effect all AFVs, even those that the weapons can't actually damage since the crew doesn't have the luxury of knowing the precise characteristics of every impact on or near their hull.

I remember reading about a Panther crew that bailed out simply because smoke was leaking into the tank through faulty seam welds and they thought the vehicle was on fire. They were taking small arms and light AT fire (not sufficient to penetrate the hull or turret) and panicked.

I would differentiate between 1st time under fire and other units. It seems (from strictly anecdotal evidence) that, regardless of training a tank crew that has naver been exposed to combat will react in one of two extremes, either abandoning the effort entirely (by driving away or dismounting and running away) or will doggedly continue the mission regardless of casualties. The morale effects in between those extremes were far less common with green crews. Mind you, one veteran in the mix would make a tremendous difference.

Now that's the challenge in wargame design. I too have read instances of AFV crews abandoning their vehicle when faced with non-existential threats such as smoke and flaming stowage.

But in the context of the average game, I believe most gamers would be quite upset if their Panther or Abrams was halted by small arms fire alone! :-)

ATRLs? Sure. But MGs alone? Nah.

That's why we decided that if a given weapon can't damage a given AFV it can still inflict morale problems if its natural AT value is above a certain number. Below that point an "invulnerable" (in game context" AFV can slough off hits from low AT value weapons.

Which raises another question. Could a .50 cal make a tank reconsider its actions? 25-30mm autocannon? Something bigger?

I used to have a friend who was a tanker with the US Army, and his take on the whole small arms question was this: I know I'm taking small arms fire, and I know it can't hurt me because I'm buttoned up. HOWEVER, does that small arms fire mean that there is something else out there that I haven't seen which could disable/destroy the tank?

FWIW, IABSM has a rule that lets infantry try to drive off tanks with small arms fire. However, it's pretty much a desperate measure. Also, HMGs can shoot at tanks with a better chance of doing damage, but it still requires a pretty big run of bad luck on the tank's part.
BWW

Reminds me of a mechanic in the solo game Patton's Best. Until positively identified every enemy tank fired as a Tiger and every anti-tank gun as an 88mm. This meant that an old 37mm gun could damage or destroy your tank – effectively causing the crew to react as if it were a superior weapon rather than actually damaging the tank. This could be added to any game in the form of a morale reaction to being hit by enemy fire with modifiers for whether the firing weapon had been positively identified or not by type as well as location.

It's pretty well established that, historically, small arms were capable of, at least, causing the tank crew to reconsider their location and activity. So a morale check with at least some chanc of a pin seems appropriate. And if the players object, remind them that they have a much better intelligence on the situation that then real-world tank crew would.

A smart Infantryman aims for the tracks or wheels, since those you can disable.

Oh and I have seen what a 30mm can do to a T-54/55. That 8-10 inches of armor means nothing.

Back in 82 a Gunnery Instructor at Bovington told us that the worst thing a Sov tank crew could here was tap! tap! tap!, the ranging rounds to be followed by 120mm of something nasty!

Tally Ho!

In a cold war setting it's also worth noting that every infantry squad typically carries anti-tank weapons, so if you are taking AK/M14 fire, there's a good chance an RPG/LAW is incoming any second.

Back in 82 a Gunnery Instructor at Bovington told us that the worst thing a Sov tank crew could hear was tap! tap! tap!

I don't know why, but that made be giggle out loud. Thanks for sharing that! :-)

How many modern troops would fire small arms vs tanks? It would be unrealistic to expect inf to shoot at tanks with rifle/mg fire. Possibly light armor, but troops learned in WWII to not shoot at tanks.

If I was in an inf team with armor rolling up, I'd stay quiet and let the threat pass, or at least so I could engage with AT weapons from the sides & rear.

@cw… me too!

In the Battlefield game series, when hunting tanks, I try to stay as concealed as possible, let the tank get close or even drive by, and then hit it. I make sure that I hit from a position that provides a fully covered egress route.

But that's true of most situations except when trying to suppress infantry: it's usually best to stay concealed until y9u get the best shot possible.

In real life there are many descriptions of foolish militia shooting at tanks with small arms. In multiple books I've read, western soldiers have commented that as a conflict progresses, the enemies become tougher as the dumb ones get killed. It's Darwinian. The smart ones who know how to avoid getting shot survive (but they still cant shoot well…).

Also in Battlefield, small arms can be used to draw tanks into a kill zone. Ping em when theyre not looking your way and they often stop, traverse, and scan for y9u. Then the dumb ones actually back into a kill zone looking for you. Curiosity kills a lot of cats.

And smoke will freak out tanks even in that game. They know smoke is often followed by demo charges on the hull. Throw smoke around a tank and the smart ones back off fast.

I think that the concensus seems to be that at the very least once you move up to HMGs or light AC it's enough to give any AFV pause. Beyond that it becomes situational such as an AFV in a city taking fire from all sides…that probably means an RPG will be coming soon.

"How many modern troops would fire small arms vs tanks? It would be unrealistic to expect inf to shoot at tanks with rifle/mg fire. Possibly light armor, but troops learned in WWII to not shoot at tanks"

Depends on the troops. On a number of occasions in Basrah 2003 CII were engaged by small arms fire, one being stuck for a while with its optics shot out, although once recovered it returned the the fray after about 6 hrs,

Tally Ho!

In Chain of Command LMG and above can inflict shock on tanks and eventually drive them off… If they are very lucky. The balance is between allowing the possibility and defending infantry always taking the shot because there's nothing to lose.

An online article describing the reactions to combat, theoretical and practical, was linked in a recent thread.

This pic shows one of the results of the author's first combat experience as a tank platoon leader in Iraq. It is quite compelling evidence of the potential value of small arms fire vs. tanks in the modern context, and also can be extended back to WW2 in many cases.

In case you do not immediately recognize what you are seeing, it is the mark where a 7.62mm round struck the bullet proof glass of a cupola periscope. The key factor is NOT that the glass was cracked, but rather that the tank commander's face was right behind and above this particular point of impact.

If this round had been 2 or 3 inches higher, this tank would have been without a TC, the tank's crew would have been highly distracted by a shockingly unpleasant development in their brotherhood-of-four, another 3 tanks would have been without their Platoon Leader, and the article in question would have been without an author.

IF he had realized, during the action, that he had been 3 inches from a face-ventilation event, he would probably have buttoned-up. As it was he struggled with situational awareness. Buttoning up would have made this even more difficult.

American TCs are trained to fight with their eyes out of the turret. German TCs in WW2 also tended towards this .. particularly the veterans. Visibility from inside a buttoned-up tank is very restrictive.

So if you want to get close enough to actually USE that Bazooka, that Panzerfaust, that RPG … and you are not in the world's most perfect ambush position (ie: you have to go towards the tank, the tank is not coming to you), the first thing you do is shoot a bunch of small arms rounds at the tank (and the accompanying infantry). Everyone goes to ground, the tank buttons up, and our hero has at least a fighting chance of getting close enough to get his shot off.

Think 'Saving Private Ryan' and the sticky-bombs.

And an experienced crew knows this. And an inexperienced crew probably carries enough of the fear of the unknown to compensate for not knowing this. In any case, if you can't look around due to all the bullets flying your way, you can't know what lies ahead and to the sides. You are effectively half-blind the moment you button-up.

So yes, shoot small arms at the tank. The smart ones will be seriously degraded, the dumb ones already were.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

My Grandfather recounted that he engaged German armour several times in 1940 with his Bren. Seems to have been a valid option for them in forcing crews to button up and, on occasion, see them off.

How many modern troops would fire small arms vs tanks? It would be unrealistic to expect inf to shoot at tanks with rifle/mg fire. Possibly light armor, but troops learned in WWII to not shoot at tanks.

That's the problem with rules. If there is a rule there is someone who
will try to use it if realistic or not.

Why not use another rule when the infantry fire fails. Infantry must make a morale check when their infantry fire bounces off the steel beast. That way the tank could panic the infantry as well. Then let's see if the players use the infantry fire to panic the tank crew rule.

The way it is now in many rules is that it is a free lunch to shoot small arms at tanks.

As ever this stuff depends on the granularity of your rules. In one stand = one platoon games and up, I'd ignore it apart from general 'under fire' type morale checks/suppression such as you find in e.g. Command Decision, or factored into infantry close assault.

In more tactical sets, many many rules now include some sort of AFV shock result, generally modelled on the system used in AHGCs Cross of Iron supplement to Squad Leader.

irl, apart from wounding exposed crew or damaging vision blocks etc, tanks had very little to physically fear from small arms fire under .50 cal. Forcing them to button up made them hugely vulnerable to infantry at close quarters, so you could just leave it up to the players.

Do you really want to leave your blind tank within 30 yards of enemy infantry?

Exposed TCs can be shot like anyone else, and force appropriate suppression/morale results.

Mark, that is a GREAT post! Thanks!

Mobius and Martin, excellent suggestions. You've made a decision about our upcoming rules a lot easier in light of Mark's post! It will simplify one aspect of the rules, always a good thing and often a better representation of the historical situation. Thank you!

From reports, Americans have never been suicidal when it come to combat. They might engage an enemy tank but will not become fanatical and stick around until the chance to escape was gone.

Even in our infantry and scout training on using the LAW, more than once the troops were 'uncomfortable' when we would roll up a tank to a close enough range for the LAW to be effective. The troops indicated that they would have to be in a bunker before they would hang around for a tank to get that close and maybe not even in a bunker.

I remember Charles MacDonalds heartfelt "Please god, don't let there be (German) tanks" in 'Company Commander'.

After being overrun in the Ardennes they were all terrified of them. Having their own tanks and TDs along helped.

Didn't the British drive off German tanks at Calais in 1940 ? The rifle fire was so quick (five rounds rapid) that the Germans thought they were being attached by machine guns.

The point is the odd anecdote dues not neccessarily make a useful rule and certainly not a usefull simulation.

Tanks close to infantry are at grave risk form the Bazooka to the RPG7 and beyond. There is a human being in control of his tanks even on the table. If he is stupid he will put his tanks at risk as did real tank commnders and if he is experience he will not. You cannot make a bad player a good general or a good general a bad one. Give this up and leave to the player.

You rules do need to differentiate between buttoned up and un-buttoned. Even the US manual of today notes its worth firing at a buttoned up tank to make it button up or if you were extreemly lucky kill the TC. The German ethos still is observation over preservation but to me thats up to the player.

Tanks ate prety much proof againt artillery there are so few rounds that land so close as to be an issue. Yes they get mentioned in books one or twice over an entire campaign, tactical its irrelevant in the grand sceme of things. Roling for fractions of a percent hits I just wasteing time.

Again tanks did occationaly panic. Why throw for it? Most tank companies had lots of bteakdowns but you dont throw for them again its not useful to the oveall strategy and trades gaiing time for sheer gambeling, not a good trade.

You cannot make a bad player a good general or a good general a bad one. Give this up and leave to the player.

I think that it depends on the player's intended role.

If he represents just the crew of a given tank, then that wold work. It is his decision as the tank commander.

If he's the company or battalion commander, then how he wants to use his tanks is one thing. How his crews react to the situations that he puts them in is something else and should be reflected in the rules.

As a Russian battalion commander I might order my armored column into a Chechen city without dismounting the infantry. But as they hear their comrades being annihilated, it would be up to the crews to determine how to react. And they would react based on their qualities with my wishes merely influencing them to a greater or lesser extant.

And the next time I repeat such an order and they hear the plinking of small arms fire on the hull my wishes would probably mean even less! : -)

IMO the qualities of the guys inside the machines matter just as much if not more than the machines. A .50 cal isn't going to do much to most modern MBTs from the front. But how the crew reacts to such inputs will matter tremendously based on their training and motivation.

We gamers must be careful not to ignore the human factor in WWII and modern gaming. It's absolutely crucial and defines how small unit tactics work. In fact, it's the emotion of fear which defines modern fire and maneuver tactics and allows suppression to work. We'll have to completely rethink our tactics when we rebel against our robot overlords in the near future. :-D

Most people have heard of the case where a tank is driven off or abandoned by small arms fire, but how many times DIDN'T that happen? Inside a tank in a fight is an incredibly noisy, busy place. Tanks can get hit by small arms fire, even light AT weapons, and not notice it until afterwards.

Another factor is artillery fire. Artillery rarely knocked out a tank, but tankers hated being under artillery fire. In WWII, the American infantry's number one defense against tanks was to call for artillery. I've read dozens of accounts of German tanks retreating under artillery fire even though they took no losses.

One of my favorite books on this topic (and modern small unit tactics in general) is "Stryker: The Siege of Sadr City".

It's a combat memoir by a member of a Stryker platoon in Iraq. He moves from RTO to machine-gunner over the course of the book.

The book details Stryker operations as well as coordination with tanks, arty, and air. Reflects both the technical aspects of modern war AND the personal, emotional aspects. He includes everything from details on vehicle recovery to specifics on weapon functions to fighting while in severe gastrointestinal distress.

link

Highly recommended for those interested in modern combined arms warfare, especially in urban combat.

As ever (What is it with wargamers?), this is all highly tank-centric.
Look at from the infantrymans point of view.
If the tank is oblivious to the infantry, there is absolutely no point in blazing away in the vain hope of hitting an optic et all when the result will only be attracting the tank, and his friends attention. If the infantry are already the target of the tanks ire then blaze away, you have little to lose.
In wargame terms I think this is less of a fire or morale effect issue than one related to your spotting rules, which I become more and more convinced are way more important than firepower or morale rules for WWII. Sadly, most rules (and gamers) focus on penetration minutiae which in the grand scheme of things is actually relatively irrelevant.

Chris, you assume too much!

Just because a given thread is focused on a particular topic doesn't mean that a given game is entirely focused on said topic.

In this particular case the rules are very much infantry-centric. AFVs are cast in a supporting role. In fact, for standard missions they can't even clear and secure objectives to ensure victory! Only infantry stands with the "Grunts" trait can do that. At best AFVs can cover terrain with their weapons thereby limiting enemy maneuver options.

And since the game scale is 1 stand = 2 to 4 fireteams, crew served weapons, or vehicles, the ratio of vehicle models to infantry stands is quite low.

But your concern is in many ways well founded given gamer predilictions for Tanks. And it is indeed very easy to let AFVs run roughshod over infantry in miniature gaming. The AFVs move faster, have big guns, and unlike infantry are vulnerable only to certain weapons on the field.

Which is why the contributions by the other TMPers are so valuable. They move the discussion AWAY from pure guns vs armor math and TOWARDS the human element. They remind us that behind 24" of steel plate is a human just as scared and probably even MORE confused than the infantry!

In other words, they've helped me focus even more on the infantry and balance them against the Tanks. :-)

As for why infantry should or should not engage AFVs with weapons otherwise incapable of hurting them, I think we covered that quite well in several posts.

You're correct that being spotted or not is a huge part of the equation. In our rules veteran infantry which is "hunkered down" in cover is pretty darn hard to target effectively. Once they open up they're easier to engage. So if they're faced only with a monster Tank which they cant hurt, they will indeed NOT engage since all they'll do is tell the AFV where to aim. But if they have other juicy targets or need to buy time to maneuver AWAY from the AFVs they might engage. It depends.

All this is making me wonder:

What does a tank crew "Panicking" look like?

The formation withdraws? Paralysed in fear and indecision?

Maybe like those Saudi M60s in GW1 reversing rather hurriedly away from a pretty light artillery barrage?

Or the German tank crews bailing out under air attack?

Perhaps not panic, but Bill Bellamys troop spend most of Goodwood pinned down in a depression surrounded by knocked out tanks, and essentially just sat there while the TCs watched the battle.

We have many historical precedents which indicate a range of possibilities. It depends on the threat, the vehicle condition, and crew character.

In some cases, believing their vehicle was on fire, crews have bailed out and run away.

In others they have driven away. For example, APC crews picking up US soldiers in the Black Hawk Down incident were skittish while under fire.

And in Vietnam there was an instance similar to the one cited by Martin in which a crew simply buttoned up and shut down in fear, not wanting to draw attention to themselves.

The challenge in modeling all that is that a tank is like a little ship. The collective action of the crew determines the fighting efficiency of the vehicle. OTOH, just because the bow gunner is freaking out doesn't mean the driver or TC will force the vehicle to run away.

Unless playing a 1:1 game modeling every crew position a certain level of abstraction is probably best.

The question does raise an interesting difference between infantry and tanks on the issue of "rallying".

With infantry, fleeing on a modern battlefield can be a death sentence and even the most terrified soldier is more likely to take cover in place and not fight than stand and run.
Thats why pinning and suppression work.

But maybe rules should represent the fact that vehicles, even if unarmored, can and do compose themselves by speeding away from a perceived threat…

What does a tank crew "Panicking" look like?

You don't need to know exactly.
Panic for an individual tank can mean either stun and bailout. From an outside observer's point of view a stunned tank does nothing. And we don't really have to know what is going on behind the scene, only that it's temporary. Stunned can be caused by a non-penetration hit on the tank. Some sort of damage – electrical, mechanical or crew orientated in some way.

Bailed out is permanent tank loss and is a result of some morale test for that tank. In my game this is done after some sort of physical damage or crew damage to the tank.

In Panzer War there is a platoon/company general morale test but that only occurs after the unit suffers a level of losses.
There are a number results of a general morale tests the range from halting temporarily to a small chance that the entire unit will abandon their tanks and run away. (Some very bad rolls all in a row can lead to a short game.)

I think panicking can also include the driver only panicking and moving out taking evasive action or backing out. I've read accounts of this causing the tank to bog down because while buttoned up the driver does not see a ditch, etc.

Another account of a driver panicking was when his TC who was unbuttoned had an AT round take off his head and the headless bloody body fell down on the driver who immediately took off.

On Tarawa when a tank lost it's TC and pulled back (not panic) to the rear to get a new one.

If a tank has an infantry escort that pulls back the tank most likely will too even if only under small arms fire.

A Sherman tank in Normandy that has an AT round ricochet off it's armor (it happens) may panic and move out or in an extreme case immediately bail. They know the next one will hit and probably penetrate. In the same battle a Tiger or Panther that has a round ricochet may feel completely safe and continue firing with multiple rounds hitting but feeling safe enough to stay in place and fight.

The US use of WP against German tanks did result in starting fires on the outside of a tank that could lead to other tanks in the platoon radioing them to bail or pull smoke into the fighting compartment and the crew panicking and bailing because of the thought of an explosion any second.

I saw a TV program where a German tanker said they were ordered to stay in their tanks until they caught fire. I'm not sure how closely that was followed.

As far as small arms fire if receiving a lot of it without an infantry escort may force the tank to be cautious and not advance because of not knowing exactly where the enemy infantry is. In our games we know exactly where everyone is, no where for the infantry to hide and ambush.

Then there is the "extreme" case of the Russian tanks without radios and buttoned up. If they had an order to assault down a road to take and hold the junction they could be immune to morale checks and small arms fire not knowing or caring the amount of causalities.

As someone said one exception does not make the rule but I think it should be modeled in a 1:1 game. I do it with a 5%-10% chance of a SNAFU each time a tank fires that can result in crew performance degrading or panicking. A round that penetrates forces a bail out. The loss of any crewman in a tank means decreased efficiency or a mission kill as it must withdraw.

Wolfhag