UshCha | 07 Jun 2019 1:50 a.m. PST |
Can anybodey point to a link with a reasonable treaties on infantry anti-tank tactics for more open spaces, i.e not urban areas. Its intereating that our latest campaign is throwing up issues as to how to set up a good anti AFV defence combining both long range (typicaly ATGW's), counter mobility measures and shorter range RPG's and recoiless rifles like the Carl Gustaf. In particulat how to credibly match numbers of weapons to the size of the threat. Typically in norther Europe where sight lines for AFV battles are limited to 500 to 1500m this lmits the scope of the analysis somewhat. |
jekinder6 | 07 Jun 2019 2:08 p.m. PST |
For current US practice, try here: link This has some US manuals going back to the 1980's: link Check your library for these: link link The morale of the story to me is that using infantry to stop tanks in open country doesn't work well for the infantry. |
Walking Sailor | 07 Jun 2019 7:36 p.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 08 Jun 2019 8:29 a.m. PST |
Yeah those links pretty much covers it basically. I was a Rifle PL in the 101 then a Mech Co. Cdr in a Mech Hvy Bde of the 18th ABN Corps … So what do I know ? |
UshCha | 08 Jun 2019 12:51 p.m. PST |
To be honest these were not as helpful as I would like. Firing with a limited view is common sense we had already got that far. The problem is they all show the situation before the enemy has dismounted or when the infantry have been stripped off. Problem is any armor commander that keeps going when he loses his supporting infantry is a Brave, Dumb Dead, Hero. So the trick is how to set up a combined defense that allows the the infantry to be tackled as well as the armor. Worked examples would help. |
Legion 4 | 09 Jun 2019 6:37 a.m. PST |
Firstly Infantry has to fight combined armors vs. armor, etc., obviously. Infantry has organic AT assets. E.g. my Mech Inf Co. had 1 M47 Dragon/Sqd, = 9/Co., 2 organic M901 ITVs/Co. M72 LAWs could be issued as needed. Also the M203 GL HEDP rd. could penetrate @ 2 inches of armor. The M2 .50 can also take on some AFVs, on the flank or rear, i.e. BMP, BTR, etc. In open terrain, Infantry units have to, as always use every bit of cover & concealment to mask their movements and positions.
Integrate interlocking FOF of all assets. The M901s in Overwatch, in the Offense and Defense. Use terrain and/or obstacles to block enemy movement. And channelize them into Kill Zones, etc. Have mortars, FA, and even, gunships, CAS and Naval fires integrated in to you overall operation in both the attack and defense. If available, of course. Take out his C3 and ADA with AT fires, mortars, FA, etc. to clear the way for gunships and CAS. If CE support is minefields can be laid as well in the defense. But you may have to be in the defense for some time. The problem is they all show the situation before the enemy has dismounted or when the infantry have been stripped off Regardless if the Infantry is still mounted or dismounted, they are targets as well. As I said BMPs, BMDs, BTRs, etc. are not that well armored. In an all out attack both sides will probably have prep fires. To suppress and destroy enemy assets. The most powerful weapon the Inf leader has is his radios. You can call in a lot of fire support as I listed. Well trained Infantry in a dismounted night attack, can use stealth, and the cover of darkness. To move on to an enemy position, and be on top of him before he knows it. E.g. REFORGER '88. Elements of my dismounted Mech Co. attacked/ raided a Canadian Leo Co. laagered in a small German village. In the middle of the night. We were on top of them before they knew it. We would have fired LAWs, placed demo, etc. destroyed or damage most of the unit and be gone, with mortars/FA covering our withdrawal. We kept our AFVs, in Support by Fire Positions, to cover our withdrawal. As well as if they had recon or intel it would have looked like the Co. was in NDP.
I hope that helps ?
|
UshCha | 09 Jun 2019 7:18 a.m. PST |
Leigon4 that is most helpful. One issue in writing decent scenarios is to KISS but it looks like we have gone to simple. It has to be clever enough to be able to get it correct. After our last game it became obvious we had over simplified the problem. You post has helped me to get a grip on what is needed |
ScoutJock | 09 Jun 2019 7:23 a.m. PST |
The book First Clash tells you everything you need to know. |
Legion 4 | 09 Jun 2019 11:03 a.m. PST |
Glad to help Ushcha … As I has said, I was a Grunt Ofr for over decade, in 1 Air Assault & 3 Mech Bns. All over the USA including the Mojave. As well as the ROK DMZ, Panama the CZ and (West)Germany. So I do have a pretty good idea/working knowledge about some topics like this. Bottom line : Terrain & situation + weather/light conditions Combined Arms with integrated support from all available assets. That your radio can call in. And/or you might get lucky and get an ITV Plt from the Bn's AT Co. And/or a Plt of MBTs from an attached Tank Bn. I've worked with gunships[AH-1s & AH-64s], USAF A-10s, etc. Trained to call in Naval Gunfire Support[ yes including 16 inchers !]. All in all … that's a lot of organic & attached fire power. You just have to know how to use it … |
UshCha | 09 Jun 2019 1:05 p.m. PST |
Legion4 You just have to know how to use it … Yup, 10 years playing I still ain't got it :-) |
Legion 4 | 10 Jun 2019 6:41 a.m. PST |
|
seneffe | 10 Jun 2019 10:24 a.m. PST |
From my conversations with former 1 (BR) Corps infantry types inc Coy Cmdrs, Bn 2ICs I can give a few general points. For the BAOR in the 1980s, the large Milan Ptn (24 firing posts) was the most important sub-unit in the Bn by far- to the extent that Brigadiers would concern themselves with the details of a Bn's Milan deployment- a bit like late war German senior officers checking individual MG42 deployment. In fact it's not too far from the truth to say that in GDP circumstances- that the Milan's would not be regarded as support weapons for the Bn- in fact the rest of the Bn (or more accurately the infantry portion of the all arms Battlegroup) would effectively be the supports for the Milan Ptn. Most rules don't really reflect this- think of Milans as Pak40s with squads of infantry to protect them, rather than Panzerschrecks. Positioning 1. Treelines facing the enemy were regarded in many units as deathtraps because they are obvious pre-planned barrage targets. Many units would use the open ground in front of woods. A reasonable dig in in open country in front of the trees (with all important overhead cover and foliage camouflage) was often thought preferable. For real, such positions can be virtually invisible until you tread on them even if they've been firing. Decent overhead cover is a deal breaker- if you have it most of the guys will survive any barrage with a bad headache and a mean attitude, if you don't have it most of them will be dead. Positioning 2. Quite a lot of the Milans would be sited facing the flank or rear of the overall position. This was more common in the late 1980s as concerns about Soviet reactive armour (though we now know there were many fewer Soviet tanks with it than feared at the time) but it has always featured in the tactical repetoire as the intent would be to combine fires with neighbouring BGs. There was less concern about siting flank/rear firing Milans in treelines AFAIK. Got to go now to help with some cooking…… |
seneffe | 10 Jun 2019 12:07 p.m. PST |
Where was I? Oh yes- separating the infnatry from the tanks. Kill as many BMPs/BTRs as possible to maximise infantry losses. Then anything to get as many surviving infantry as possible to dismount. It was reckoned that once Sov Motor rifles dismounted, their command and control on foot was so difficult, ammo expenditure so profligate that they would be pretty much done for the day even if they had been successful- it was one of the main ways they hoped to slow the advance. |
Lion in the Stars | 10 Jun 2019 1:26 p.m. PST |
Agree with seneffe, infantry ATGMs like Dragon, TOW, or Milan are the PAK40s of today, not 'Schrecks or 'Fausts. The 'Schreck equivalent would be M136/AT4 rockets, and the 'Faust equivalent would be the M72 LAW. |
Wolfhag | 10 Jun 2019 3:17 p.m. PST |
Snipers are also trained to target the base of the radio antennas to take out the tanks communications and optics. A sniper rifle with a 1 MOA accuracy should have about a 90% chance to hit a 3-inch wide antenna base at 200-300m and up to 50% at 600m. Also, the M2 .50cal API ammo can penetrate about 20mm at 500m. Given enough time a Ma Deuce can wreck the outside of an armored vehicle. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 11 Jun 2019 1:05 a.m. PST |
Seneffe, Thanks for that. It was becoming obvious to us that like tanks, "the numbers game" is what counts. While hideing and positioning helps enourmously, it is no real replacement for sheer numbers. 24 Milan fireing posts stand some reasonable chance of dinting a largish force. Knocking out the odd tank/APC/IFV just does not make the maths work, you need quantity. We played a game with an ex serving man. We had played the scenario several times and been dissatisfied with our performance. The profesionals approach was radicaly diffrent and his use of mortars was unique. He had no more ammunition than we had, but his selection of DFP's was completely different to ours and much more effective as was his anti-tank defence. Learnt more in one eveing than we have on our own in a year! It does seem a dissapointment to me that so few wargamers seem to care about real tactics now. Is that why historical gameing is faiing? In may cases it is dumming down, not just my words, theye are here on TMP in todays posts noting this. |
Legion 4 | 11 Jun 2019 8:34 a.m. PST |
For the BAOR in the 1980s, the large Milan Ptn (24 firing posts) was the most important sub-unit in the Bn by far- to the extent that Brigadiers would concern themselves with the details of a Bn's Milan deployment- a bit like late war German senior officers checking individual MG42 deployment. Our Bn Cdrs were certainly concerned with the placement of our TOWs. By the Mid '80s most US ARMY Inf Bn TO&Es had an AT Co. With 18-24 TOWs(? ). While again in the case of Mech each Cos. [4/Bn] each had an organic TOW Sec. of 2 ITVs. We expected to engage large numbers of WP AFVs if the Cold War along the IGB, went hot. And add to those organic fires with supporting fires/assets as I described previously. E.g. FA, Gunships, CAS, etc. Decent overhead cover is a deal breaker- if you have it most of the guys will survive any barrage with a bad headache and a mean attitude, if you don't have it most of them will be dead. True and we are talking about a minimum of 18 inches of solid, hard cover. We would set up in tree lines with the SOP of Camo, Cover & Concealment. With the consideration of digging in deep. But in many cases we preferred to remain mobile. Again these factors are always the bottom line : situation, terrain, weather and light conditions. I never remember digging in in the open in a European type environment. Maybe that was a leftover technique we remembered from Vietnam. How effective using the jungle/woods as cover & concealment was. But again you may have to dig in very deep. If you are going to be there for any amount of time. And yes, generally the VC/PAVN never had the firepower a WP unit would have from supporting fires. But we liked to hide in any terrain available, just like the VC/NVA. Milans would be sited facing the flank or rear Yes, we had Primary, Alternate and Supplemental positions and it was a given. You always wanted to get a flank or rear shot. An ambush technique probably a "leftover" from Vietnam. Engaging the enemy from one direction causing him to turn to directly engage where the fire was coming from. And with another element firing at the now enemies' exposed flanks and rear. Again based on our experiences in Vietnam/SE Asia. we very much like "hiding" in closed terrain, e.g. jungles/forests. And as I described a predilection for dismounted night attacks if possible.
As in the French & Indian War, units like Roger's Rangers copied/imitated the American Indian's stealthy techniques. To good effect in that war. And somewhat in the AWI later. We always even had "stand to" when in and NDP/defense positions @ 1 hour before dawn. Where the entire unit would go to 100%. As that was favored tactic that the American Indians used.
So again, based one our experiences in Vietnam, we would use some of those "stealthy" techniques. When applicable in places like Europe. Regardless, the US like the WP did depend on lots of firepower if available and applicable to most situations.
It does seem a dissapointment to me that so few wargamers seem to care about real tactics now. Is that why historical gameing is faiing? In may cases it is dumming down, not just my words, theye are here on TMP in todays posts noting this. That does not surprise me as generally it appear overall many don't know history and remember lessons from the past. And I have felt this for a long time now. Note I related some techniques we may have used currently based on so long past wars. You must know the lessons learned and which are applicable and useful in the current situation and terrain. |
Uparmored | 21 Jun 2019 9:44 p.m. PST |
Legion4 is a living legend. Thanks for your posts as always. |
UshCha | 22 Jun 2019 6:22 a.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 22 Jun 2019 7:46 a.m. PST |
"Tanks" Guys ! Always glad to help ! |
typhoon2 | 05 Jul 2019 2:14 p.m. PST |
A few quick points, based on my time as a section GPMG gunner and subsequently a MILAN operator, in Germany and the UK: German villages were usually 2000m apart, deliberately so since that was typical anti-tank missle range. Canalise enemy advances or force them togo through LAW-infested urban areas. BAOR doctrine for infantry formations such as mine (5 Queens, part of 20 Armoured brigade/4th Armoured Division)was to dig in deeply – combat engineering stores aplenty (plus, in wartime, helping ourselves to civilian kit) and resistant to a 122mm round impacting directly on a fire trench. It would take up to 48 hours to get that well dug in but would have been worth it. An FV432 accidentally went over one trench and did no harm to it at all. Flank shots were emphasised, since T64s and ERA were tougher from the front by quite some margin. Mind you, we were taught to ignore tanks and IFVs in favour of more important – and rare – assets, such as recce, air defence, engineering vehicles and especially command elements. Take out the force multipliers and things would get sticky very quickly for Third Shock Army. Of course we were effectively immobile, with the heavies behind us. Our role was to force deployment and hold them a while, giving the support assets the chance to whittle down advancing forces (Follow On Forces Attack, AirLand Battle and all the other phrases that got bandied about). A deployed GFSG force would have meant a hell of a lot of artillery, with chemicals assumed in every engagement. All those lovely sightlines out to two klicks would have meant little once dust and smoke was kicked up (a double-edged sword, as Ivan tried to pick his way forward), even with MIRA and other exotic sights. Infantry hiding in solid fortifications would have been very difficult to winkle out, assuming morale held, and 66mm and 84mm MAWs would give any tankie pause for though. I once led a counter-attack to recover a trench in a harrowed field. We got to within six feet before seeing it, which goes to show the benefits of camouflage and careful construction. With toys on the table, the game takes priority. This is pretty much the opposite of simulation/realism. Writing a plan that is difficult to change while looking at an empty battlefield would come a lot closer to how Soviet commanders would see the advance. |
UshCha | 08 Jul 2019 1:44 a.m. PST |
Writing a plan that is difficult to change while looking at an empty battlefield would come a lot closer to how Soviet commanders would see the advance. Surely thats how how you play anyway? At worst markers for beginners, at best the other guy just gets a balank map. Putting all the defender on at the start ruins the suspence and it just becomes a "toy parade". Do boargamers collect playing pieces and have far more games than they cam play? I assumed they were actually about playing not collecting. |
Legion 4 | 08 Jul 2019 8:27 a.m. PST |
I have to generally agree with that. There are many rules systems and many methods, etc. It depends again how you play it.
Canalise enemy advances or force them togo through LAW-infested urban areas. Yes, we were taught similar and I mentioned that is my posts.
Flank shots were emphasised, since T64s and ERA were tougher from the front by quite some margin. Mind you, we were taught to ignore tanks and IFVs in favour of more important – and rare – assets, such as recce, air defence, engineering vehicles and especially command elements Yes, we were trained the same, generally. As [hopefully ?] all of NATO was/is. |
Lion in the Stars | 08 Jul 2019 1:30 p.m. PST |
Do boargamers collect playing pieces and have far more games than they cam play? I assumed they were actually about playing not collecting. I don't know about collecting playing pieces, but most board gamers I know have more games than they can play! |
UshCha | 11 Jul 2019 1:35 a.m. PST |
WOW, I'm the weirdo! I only have models I need and I play more than I paint AND I hate painting Even worse I care about credible games, how far of the normal is that! |
Legion 4 | 11 Jul 2019 5:35 a.m. PST |
I like painting ! I do much more of that than gaming these days! |
Uparmored | 12 Jul 2019 4:10 a.m. PST |
Reading posts from guys like Typhoon2 and Legion 4 sure reminds me to appreciate what Reagan and Thatcher did to stare down the Soviets in '80s. Watching stuff like the Reforger exercises on Youtube reinforces it. NATO were clearly ready to fight and win and the Soviets probably knew it and therefore never attacked. I wish we had such resolve now to tackle the adversaries of our time. |
Legion 4 | 12 Jul 2019 6:32 a.m. PST |
Yes, we trained hard in prep for the "next" war. Whether it be in Central America, Korea, Europe and even the desert. Deployed to Panama, the Canal Zone 3 times with the 101, in the early '80s. Participated in Team Spirit '84 & '85 in the ROK. The ROK version of REFORGER. Than later REFORGER '88 in [West] Germany. As well as all types of other training all over CONUS. We had the mind set that we could go to war anytime. And prepared for that eventuality. Even when the Hostage Rescue Mission in Iran failed. I was an LT in the 101, we were put on alert. We may have been deployed, probably along with the 82d, USMC, etc. If need be to "fix" that situation. But as we see decades later "traditional" enemies remain to one point or another. For better or worse. Plus a few new ones … |
UshCha | 21 Jul 2019 9:13 a.m. PST |
Seneffe. I have now run off 24 Milan firing posts and teams in 1/144, Do you have any details (or anybody else) what the organization and vehicles would be/ It would be good to have the whole thing available just in case they need to bug out. I may be able to make the Milan teams available via Shipyards direct print. However be aware these are "real scale" so the detail is minimal as its close to real scale not circus freak scale. They do look far more sensible next to a vehicles, even more so as they are printed as a team (gunner and No 2, on a very thin (0.6mm) base to stop them looking like they are on a small hill. |
Wolfhag | 24 Jul 2019 4:47 p.m. PST |
Civilians stopped tanks by stuffing exhausts with clothing during coup attempt in Turkey. A chef at a restaurant in Istanbul, Danyal Şimşek, and the restaurant owner, Mehmet Şükrü Kintaş, told Anadolu Agency in Istanbul Thursday that they stopped almost 10 tanks this way. The duo firstly set up a barricade with their cars to halt the tanks, and then stuffed the exhausts with their clothes. Civilians brought many soldiers who were in the tanks to the police, as the soldiers had to leave after the exhaust gases filled the interior. link Wolfhag |
Legion 4 | 25 Jul 2019 6:28 a.m. PST |
Also, "partisans" in 1956 Hungary destroyed a lot of USSR tanks in the streets. Using classic guerilla tactics and methods in a MOUT environment. |
Rudysnelson | 01 Aug 2019 12:24 p.m. PST |
Aim for the tracks. Make not able to move and it becomes less effective. It is also a hindrance to the enemy ability to maneuver as well. |
Legion 4 | 01 Aug 2019 7:06 p.m. PST |
Agreed, that is SOP ! |
Uparmored | 02 Aug 2019 2:33 a.m. PST |
Wolfhag, a very good example of why infantry should always fight alongside tanks. |
Legion 4 | 02 Aug 2019 7:15 a.m. PST |
Yep Combined Arms ! The US ARMY recently moved the Armor Training School to Ft. Benning, GA. Which where the Infantry School is. That is Combined Arms ! |
RJ Smith | 06 Aug 2019 10:39 a.m. PST |
Someone above mentioned First Clash the novel/training pam developed for ( and about) 4CMBG during the Cold War showing a hypothetical defence of a mech infantry battalion group facing a Soviet Tank Regiment. Its a good read, accurate regarding the weapons and tactics in use at the time and fairly well illustrated with maps and diagrams. Another similar option showing a Canadian M-113 Company in the defence incorporating TOW, M-72, 84mm, HMGS etc. is the Rise Fall and Rebirth of the Emma Gees from the same time period link |
Legion 4 | 06 Aug 2019 6:33 p.m. PST |
My US M113 Mech Co. versed the 4CMBG on REFORGER '88. Well not just my Mech Co., but an entire US Mech Heavy Bde. |
UshCha | 07 Aug 2019 12:44 p.m. PST |
RJ Smith, I wish I had seen this link 10 years ago. I have been conscious ever since Maneouvre Group was written that Machine guns were never really well modeled in our rules. We were generally better than most sets where the modelling is at best dreadful. I was conscious that in some circumstances they should be have been more effective but that simply upping the factor with no limitations made it far worse than the issues it fixed. We eventually we got it closer to how it should work and in Issue 2 we have it as good as I think we can get, given we don't want a complete manual just on MG fire. The Link was an excellent verification that our model is "close enough". In addition it sheds light on an issue that puzzled us for a long time, who used AP rounds for such as HMG's.? This link clearly gives a good precedent. You can really have AP or Ball. Having lots of both is not going to work, its just too much to store. This gives an excellent insight into this issue. |
Legion 4 | 07 Aug 2019 1:45 p.m. PST |
MGs usually have "4 & 1" – 4 Ball & 1 Tracer Rd Ammo mix. .50 Cal AP rounds would be ordered and issued separately by the box/ammo can … |
UshCha | 08 Aug 2019 1:34 a.m. PST |
Legion as usual you are a mine of information. Like in engineering, the question is knowing who/what/ and where to ask the questions. Nowonder its taken us 10 years to get a credible set of rules, its taken that long to understand what questions to ask. It perhaps explains why so many rules are so poor, there designers could not be bothered to study the real thing to en extent that they understood the mechanisms of the real world. "Game" designers are aliens from another world so I have nothing in common with them, reality is not an issue for them anyway. |
Legion 4 | 08 Aug 2019 7:26 a.m. PST |
Always glad to help … As I said. I served 4 years as an ROTC Cadet, 10 & 1/2 years in 4 Infantry Bns, a CBT SPT Bn, Mech Hvy Bde HQ and 1 year in the Res [as a Intel Ofr !?]. I did learn a some stuff ! |
UshCha | 08 Aug 2019 10:18 a.m. PST |
so the usual dilemma occurs as usual for the desinger, where to draw the line. The Emma Gees links specific selection of AP rather than Ball is a case in point. What do we do? The usual Idiot comments from Gameres that they use what is best at the time is just that idiot. It would imply huge stacks of both ammunition types in one place clearly not practical. So what are the alternatives. Well my position is to just assume all have ball only ammunition, give them ball ammunition with Armour penetration for ball. We do have an Optional Rule section where added detail can be introduced but although its a significant issue, are there many who would use an option to limit the HMG to AP Rounds only with an extended fixed line of 1500m? Probably not, so I will keep it as reference data in case anybody writes to me. Feel free to agree or disagree saying why. SOB! despite selling literally hundreds of copies I have had only about two folk as questions or given feedback which is a pity. Its a hard life being a designer (but it is FUN). |
Lion in the Stars | 08 Aug 2019 6:19 p.m. PST |
UshCha, you do know that the US has separate belts of SLAP, Ball, Raufoss (SAP-HEI), etc for all their .50cals and the .50 gunner will call for a box of whatever he wants from the truck below him, right? Mostly ball, IIRC, but a couple boxes of SLAP and Raufoss are part of the basic combat load. And the various 40mm grenade belts are also quite varied, but HEDP predominates. If you're getting down to 7.62mm MGs, then yeah, I'd expect almost exclusively Ball because 7.62mm AP is about pointless in modern combat. |
Legion 4 | 09 Aug 2019 6:03 a.m. PST |
Yes, you can upload any type of ammo if it is ordered and available for your .50 and M203. Generally 4&1 Ball is the standard for MGs. As I posted here previously … HEDP for the M203, can penetrate about 2in. of armor. The M2 .50 call Ball will penetrate light armor. We routinely fired at plywood targets on the range. Of BMPs' side and rear aspects. And of course a .50cal with Ball will chew thru bricks like peanut brittle. For gaming purposes we use a system that gives each weapon an APers, AT, and AA rating. Of course certainly many weapons may not have an AA rating. Or even a AT rating. Small Arms may not have an AT or AA rating.
E.g. on a 1d6 : AP4+/AT6+/AA+5 [e.g. a .50 Cal would have all three ratings.] Now if a Weapon has an e.g. of AA-0 it is not listed. I.e. AP5+/AT4+ … |