"Who shoots first?" Topic

On the russian steppes or in the desert the question of which tank shoots first must have been determined largely by gun range. In Europe the conditions must have made other factors, such as cupola design, as important. What's the best mechanism to work out which side in a tank engagement shoots first?

The one who shoots first would be the one who first spots the enemy target.

I agree – who is best at spotting

And don't underrate spotting in the Western Desert or the steppe. Minor folds in the ground become almost invisible--and very important.

Han Solo shoots first,anything else is blasphemy

Usually the defender, or the one with the bigger gun, which has longer range.

Superior German optics tend to help too.

Charles is correct.

In Western Europe, terrain would be a highly limiting factor with moving vehicles being at some disadvantage.

Over the years, I've come to rely on the method from the original Nuts: ROll a D6 each, stationary unit wins on a draw :)

Avaliable operations research by the British showed that the defender overwhelmingly shot first. Remember, the human eye is drawn to motion.

In the desert, heat haze, camouflage, and other environmental factors restricted visibility more than you might iamgine. On the other hand, dry conditions and the right sort of ground saw vehicles producing clouds of dust, which made sighting trivial--except that you couldn't see anything behind that first line of vehicles. Of course, the tank commander's in the second line would be choking on dust and have grit blowing into their eyes (thus, Rommel's goggles).

Beyond just sitting still, even quickly prepared positions made tanks very difficult to spot. Put your tank hull down in a position where the turret is not a lone silhouette, throw a vaguely appropriate caamo net over it, et voila! To avoid silhouetting, have another hill or building behind you, be on a lower hump on the main hill, have trees behind you, or even park behind or partially in some bushes.

Defender spots first on a 1-5. :)

Good call.

Han shoots first. 'nuff said.

As noted above, motion was the main determinant of advantage, as stationary vehicles (ideally in cover) had a huge spotting advantage.

Terrain density more determined average engagement ranges.

Russia isn't all steppe, much of it is swampy forest.

Yep, you won't see non-moving stuff to the sides, when observing, but will if it moves, out to 180+ degrees.

The rule of thumb is who spots first.

Advancing tanks are at a disadvantage against tanks and guns in defensive positions. That's why attacks usually were the costliest and the Allies suffered high casualties in Europe.

So the defender has first shot and has the luxury of having their composure. Those on the receiving end are probably having a significant emotional moment which will impair their ability to react properly. They have to locate the target and keep it together. Often the classic reaction was to pull back and then assess what's going on from a safer position.

The quality of your equipment makes a huge difference. Tanks with good vision and fast turrets often did much better. The gunner on Panther tanks had superlative sight, but their field of vision was highly restricted. Sherman gunners often used a wide field unity periscope to spot targets and would switch to tank optics for the actual shot. Combined with a fast turning turret it explains how Shermans often were able to get a draw on Panthers as they could acquire a target 2-3 times faster.

A perfect example of a shoot first and win scenario is Arracourt. Inexperienced German crews attacked on a foggy morning against US 75mm Shermans in defensive positions. The Panthers were spotted long before they noticed the Shermans and TD's and were easily flanked and wiped out.

Nuts! rules by Two Hour Wargames handles this very realistically in the In Sight test. Who reacts first?

As said above, the moving vehicle/figure is at a certain disadvantage. If you thought German optics were important that would be an easy modifier.

For tanks, being buttoned up hurts on this test. But sticking out of the hatch can be fatal when the lead starts to fly.

Tom

I'll go with Patrick R.

Wolfhag

Stationary fires first, then advancing.

Within these catagories better troop quality breaks ties and fires first (troop quality ratings should consider tank ergonomics.)

Random "bad spots" can be rolled into To Hit rolls (so a miss could just mean on this odd occasion the stationary tank did not spot the moving tank). Use a d10 to allow a range of results.

For specifics see the sequence of play for Combat Command.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
(And yes Han shot first – he had better troop quality.)

Defense / stationary fires first most of the time.

There should be some allowance for an attacking unit to have information about where hostile tanks are which might blur things a little and should at least allow the advancing player a chance, albeit slim, of getting in the first (probably inaccurate) shot.

It is worth remembering in terms of the Western Desert / Soviet Union that German doctrine called on tanks to fire from while stopped, it was the Brits and Soviets who were happy to fire on the move, so another modifier in the Germans favor…

Never that simple. Whoever spots first can then shoot. However if you are well hidden you may wait till the vehicle has passed and shoot in the flanks or rear. Like the man says spotting stationaty targets is hatd. There are pictures of German anti tank guns camoflargred in Europe on basic open ground with modest crops in the field. Still hard to see.

As noted above, motion was the main determinant of advantage, as stationary vehicles (ideally in cover) had a huge spotting advantage.

The stationary, waiting unit does indeed often shoot first. Sometimes they aren't looking at the right spot.

Then again it is who hits first is more important so this would advantage the stationary firer as shooting on the move is not accurate.

Anyone using ambush rules?

Wolfhag

Hail of Fire does. Basically like Chain of Command, but to its logical extreme. Defender chooses where to deploy their forces after the battle has started, within a few limitations. I've had a number of people scoff and refuse to play, and I understand where they're coming from, but for the most part it once it plays out the tables look just like any other game, with recon units rooting out hidden defenders from the juiciest spots and attackers doing their best to flank the enemy once they're committed.

BTW, I love threads like this :)

So, recon pops enemy forces onto the board where they're looking? In theory, you could be really gamey and recon the places that are least useful to the defender, I suppose?

The defender has to deploy their forces outside a radius from the attacking teams, and even farther away from recon. As the attacker gets closer to what would probably be the best spots for the defender to ambush from, the defender has to decide whether to "reveal" themselves there and commit, or effectively abandon those positions to the approaching enemy. This makes recon really useful and also allows you to send out scout teams to prod good defensive spots before sending the rest of the unit. The process itself isn't realistic, but the result is very similar and it's fast and fun without requiring maps or tokens and keeps it action focused.

we brief the attacking players where the enemy is not ,i.e enough board to deploy sensibly on. The defender deployes anywhere outside rhis area. Idealy on a map but to make mattres easire with real and dummy markers, that acn only be spotted is they move shoot are are touched by an enemy vehicle.

The defender then goes for an anti recon plan, anti tank plan and an anti infantry plan. The anti recon is to stop the recon from spotting the anti tank wepons (antks or Guns) ro keep the enemy blind. The rest is self explanitoiry. As in the real world superiority of 3 to 1 is needed for the attacker, more if its heavily engineerd in. To some extent the fiorst wave of ranks will be recon as the enemy reveal themselves to enemy fire.

"Advancing tanks are at a disadvantage against tanks and guns in defensive positions. That's why attacks usually were the costliest and the Allies suffered high casualties in Europe."

As did the Germans in Europe – they suffered heavy armour losses by continually adhering to their doctrine of always counter-attacking, and immediately found the boot was on the other foot-

A Tiger or Panther may shoot first, but the Panda eats shoots and leaves……….

I'll see myself out

Timing is everything.
Time flies like an arrow but fruit flies like a banana.

Trench warfare should always be a last ditch effort…

we're doing this? really? ok.