Gauntlet | 12 Aug 2020 8:22 a.m. PST |
So in my company level game, there are panzerschrek, piats, panzerfausts etc. But often I find situations where one side has all of its armor and anti tank put out of action but still has ample rifle squads. Suppose the opposing side still has one tank, should the battle be considered over because the infantry have no chance of destroying it? This is not how real battles work because you would have no way of knowing what anti tank weapons have simply not revealed themselves yet or what reserves could arrive at any minute. So for a ww2 game, should infantry be able to attack tanks in assault? My understanding that the few grenade like AT weapons that were standard issue were generally ineffective and probably not carried by the majority of riflemen. How do other games you have played handle this when a side could theoretically have no ability to handle armor? |
Korvessa | 12 Aug 2020 9:03 a.m. PST |
|
Steamingdave2 | 12 Aug 2020 9:09 a.m. PST |
|
Andrew Walters | 12 Aug 2020 9:30 a.m. PST |
|
79thPA | 12 Aug 2020 9:31 a.m. PST |
I think you can set up scenario limitations. So, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Four guys with Nagants and 15 rounds of ammo between them aren't going to be to keen on tangling with a panzer. If you want to add the unknown factor, each squad or group can secretly roll a d6 (or whatever) and on a 6 (or whatever you decide) they have some type of AT capability, be it mines, satchel charges, grenade bundles, etc. |
Pan Marek | 12 Aug 2020 9:36 a.m. PST |
AT grenades or molotovs were all the Russian infantry had once German armor got too heavy for anti tank rifles. Their AT grenades, used properly, worked. Of course, they needed to be very close, so the grenades worked best in built up areas. |
Sgt Slag | 12 Aug 2020 10:05 a.m. PST |
In my game (not a simulation…) for plastic Army Men, I allow it if the attacking Infantry pass a Morale/Gut Check. The chances of success, are 1 in 6 (16.7%), but it is still a chance. I based my rule on the history of grenade bundles being used on the rear top of tanks, in WW II, to destroy them. Loads of variables, but I like the chance it gives simple Infantrymen. I also require a minimum number of 2, with a maximum of 10, figures to 'Close Assault a Tank' (if I remember correctly, it took around eight hand grenades, tied together in a bundle, to have enough power to blow through the armor). Your game, your rules/ruling. Cheers! |
Rudysnelson | 12 Aug 2020 10:16 a.m. PST |
Validation in clear by the post above examples. The question may be the game mechanic used which depends on the counter level of the system. I have seen some systems where the unit counter is disrupted after an attack to show ammo restrictions. Some systems may even become combat ineffective. At a higher level squad or platoon counters it is just part of an action. |
Gauntlet | 12 Aug 2020 10:21 a.m. PST |
Thank you all for the responses! It seems pretty unanimous, though I imagine it should be limited. One squad probably shouldn't be able to do it repeatedly since they certainly wouldn't be carrying enough explosives. |
Rudysnelson | 12 Aug 2020 10:48 a.m. PST |
If a squad does it, then a effectiveness dice roll could be made to see if they are disrupted or functional. |
catavar | 12 Aug 2020 11:04 a.m. PST |
|
ChrisBrantley | 12 Aug 2020 11:35 a.m. PST |
From Wiki on "Infantry Close Assaults" in "Anti-Tank Warfare" "Tanks were also vulnerable to hand-placed anti-tank mines. Infantry have even immobilized tanks using a set of plates covered with leaves and dirt as dummy mines – the ruse being augmented by the crew's obscured vision – infantry can then attack the stopped tank. This tactic was taught to the British Home Guard during World War II since they were not often provided with long-range anti-tank weapons.[14]" "In some cases in World War II, a tactic of some infantry was to run directly up to a tank, avoiding its main and machine guns, and pour petrol over and into the tank and light it, sometimes blocking the exit, burning the crew alive.[citation needed]" "In the Japanese army, the use of satchel charges and pole charges was widespread. Although the charges could knock out any allied tank, the tactic was extremely close-range and the sappers were vulnerable to allied weapons." Source: link |
DisasterWargamer | 12 Aug 2020 11:55 a.m. PST |
Results could be anything from dead infantry men to blown track – limiting mobility of tank to disabling the tank |
UshCha | 12 Aug 2020 12:19 p.m. PST |
A tank on its own in a built up area is no threat. You walk to the other side of the hundreds of buildings and it goes past it. If the tank has no infantry to protect it it will have to go home soon anyway as it will run out of fuel and ammo. In an urban area it can see nothing if its buttoned up and if it un-buttoned its at risk from small arms. I suggest you have a daft set of rules that does not model the significant limitation of armored vehicles in various terrain. Even a tank on its own in the open with no infantry can do little, It can't shoot at infantry at the bottom of their slit trench which is often tank proof while unbuttoned. Trying to collapse trenches is both time consuming, difficult to do unbuttoned and risks the tank bogging in the unlikely event that the tank causes the trench to fail. Now the other guy having infantry and tanks against an enemy with minimal anti-tank capability is a forgone conclusion. The infantry protect the tank from short range improvised weapons while the tank helps suppress the enemy infantry. |
Panzerfaust | 12 Aug 2020 12:22 p.m. PST |
Another factor would be the nationality and time. A soviet soldier at Kursk would be far more likely to attempt a close assault than say an American soldier in Normandy. And then you have the Japanese army that had a host of suicidal special weapons for close assault on tanks. Of course, they may be considered a special tank hunter infantry unit rather than the run of the mill soldier. |
advocate | 12 Aug 2020 1:06 p.m. PST |
I'm guessing that it would be more likely in 1944 than 1940. |
Dagwood | 12 Aug 2020 1:11 p.m. PST |
British rifle fire in France 1940 was sometimes enough to make German tanks retreat. |
BrianW | 12 Aug 2020 1:23 p.m. PST |
I would second Dagwood on this one. I have a friend who was a tanker with the US Army, and he said something that stuck with me. I asked him about a game rule that let infantry fire at tanks with the possibility of making them retreat. He said, "I'm not afraid of small arms fire. I am afraid of what else is out there that I haven't seen, or hasn't attacked me yet." So, don't think of it from the infantryman's point of view; think of it from the tanker's POV. Yes, it's just small arms fire. Who are they covering fire/distracting me for? |
McWong73 | 12 Aug 2020 1:46 p.m. PST |
|
Blutarski | 12 Aug 2020 1:56 p.m. PST |
Once their accompanying infantry had been stripped or separated, tanks (ESPECIALLY isolated tanks) were extremely vulnerable to attack by properly trained and equipped infantry. For example, according to the below-referenced rule set, an infantryman on foot within 10 meters of a buttoned up T34 was effectively invisible to the tank crew. Highly recommend checking out the old "Panzerknacker" rules written by Dave Popplewell, who had studied and instructed on infantry versus tank close assault tactics while serving in the British Army; this rule set has a lot of good related info in it and was in fact written as an adjunct to "Cross of Iron" by Matthew Sparkes – a WW2 eastern front skirmish rule set (which are themselves a blast to play). B
|
Wolfhag | 12 Aug 2020 2:26 p.m. PST |
Blind Spots for Panther and T-34
The Tank Destruction Badge (German: Sonderabzeichen für das Niederkämpfen von Panzerkampfwagen durch Einzelkämpfer) was a World War II German military decoration awarded to individuals of the Wehrmacht who had single-handedly destroyed an enemy tank or an armored combat vehicle using a hand-held weapon. Anti-tank units were ineligible for this award. It was established on 9 March 1942, but could be awarded for actions dating back to 22 June 1941 (the start of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union). Prior to the introduction of this award, the soldier would be awarded the General Assault Badge for the action. On 18 December 1943, the OKH introduced a gold class that recognised the single-handed destruction of five tanks. A soldier could therefore have four silver badges which would all be replaced by a gold version upon the destruction of a fifth tank (to which separate silver could be added thereafter). Experts (not sure exactly who they are) say that about 13,000 Tank Destruction Badges were awarded until the end of World War II. Leutnant Heinrich Zubrod destroyed 13 tanks single handed. This Knights Cross winner is the record holder by getting the Tank Destruction Badge. This information came from Dirk Schneider, the author of the book: " Das Panzervernichtungsabzeichen sowie das Tieffliegervernichtungsabzeichen". I could not find a similar award for other nations. The rules I'm working on do allow infantry to use their historical tank assault weapons. It was normally the loader's job to "ride shotgun" and protect from the infantry in addition to pistol ports. What kind of a game would not allow a grunt to single-handedly knock out a tank, or die trying? Shameful! Wolfhag |
Legion 4 | 12 Aug 2020 3:13 p.m. PST |
Yes, Infantry should be able to close assault AFVs. As pointed out by many here. |
Legionarius | 12 Aug 2020 4:43 p.m. PST |
Infantry should be allowed to attack a tank, especially in closed terrain. However, as pointed out by many in this forum, it should neither be automatic not easy. The nationality and the circumstances should have a big impact. |
Garand | 12 Aug 2020 6:14 p.m. PST |
As a supporting note, the existence of Zimmerit on German tanks show that they took the threat of close assault from enemy infantry very seriously. Damon. |
John the OFM | 12 Aug 2020 6:33 p.m. PST |
Isn't that why Zimmerit was invented? The Germans had the magnetic Teller mine that would stick to the steel surface and go BOOM. The Russians had the equivalent. There was nothing magical about Zimmerit. It was simply a padte like something that was applied with ridges. The ridges were important because the paste itself was non-magnetic and the ridges surface was very difficult for the mine to stick too, particularly if the surface was irregular and bumpy. There would have been no need to invent it if tanks were not attacked by insanely brave infantry. Instead of sticking to the tank, the mine slid off. |
John the OFM | 12 Aug 2020 6:35 p.m. PST |
And here's how the Finns attacked tanks in the movies. link Note how the Molotov cocktails in this scene are not improvised, but prepared and ready. Note also you have to drive off the escorting infantry too. |
Bandolier | 12 Aug 2020 8:43 p.m. PST |
Another definite yes. In my rules it's a bad idea to have tanks/armour unsupported by infantry. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 12 Aug 2020 9:04 p.m. PST |
Bucket of thick mud works for the moment. Toss on vision ports and the tank is blind. Once struck nearby after blinded, the infantry start knocking….. the tank crew will become very nervous and may surrender. Otherwise the tank just drives off to clear their vision in a "safe" neighborhood. |
Martin Rapier | 12 Aug 2020 11:12 p.m. PST |
As also noted above, even if the plucky infantry decide not to have a go, at some point the lonely tank is going to have to go back to its laager area to refuel, bomb up and do the several hours a day of maintenance required to keep WW2 tanks operational. The crew also need to sleep occasionally. Unsupported armour at night with enemy infantry in the vicinity are dead tanks. Which is why tank units can take round but struggle to hold it. Yes, there are a few notable exceptions. |
Green Tiger | 13 Aug 2020 1:53 a.m. PST |
|
UshCha | 13 Aug 2020 5:04 a.m. PST |
as noted infantry need more than a rifle to kill a tank. If they have anti-tank weapons even if only Molotov Coacktails they can attack an unescorted tank at least in close country. Perhaps a bound together bunch of gerandes might do it but that would take time. In addition do you remove grenades from the infantry making them vulnerable or do you have ample stock, in which case you had prepared anti tank weapons by definition. The boundary conditions of the simulatioin need to be well defined or it becomes an unrealistic and boring die rolling excersise. |
Marc33594 | 13 Aug 2020 6:13 a.m. PST |
Zimmerit falls into the solution looking for a problem category. An awful lot of work went into it. "Despite the stated purpose of Zimmerit for protecting against magnetic mines, it's not clear that it actually worked. Neither the British, Russians, nor the Americans made any notable use of magnetic mines to counter German tanks." link |
Andy ONeill | 13 Aug 2020 6:58 a.m. PST |
A british officer examining zimmerit assumed it's purpose was camouflage. He thought it worked pretty well in making an otherwise reflective surface matt. It worked quite well against german mines as well. Steel panthers allows close assaults on a tank by infantry. The infantry morale is greatly reduced if they fail. You could combine that sort of approach with a nationality & unit type vs year look up. Hitler youth 1945…. Pretty flipping high chance. German 1941… Quite low. Modify it by terrain and angle. Reduce by close support infantry. |
Wolfhag | 13 Aug 2020 8:22 a.m. PST |
What I'm using is the assaulting infantry must pass an Aggressiveness Check to assault. If he passes it the tank and any escorting infantry respond with a Situational Awareness Check as soon as they get a LOS to the assaulting infantry. If they are unbuttoned and not suppressed and expecting a close assault they'll be pretty prepared. This is where pistol ports can come in handy. The result of the SA Check is that the tank and escorting infantry can respond right away or an Engagement Delay before he notices and can react. Success depends on the targets Engagement Delay and the assaulting infantry speed and expertise. If the infantry can get inside the tanks blind spot he should be successful. Here is another method that was safer:
Another safe way was to just throw Teller Mines in front of tanks and hope for the best. However, it weighed 8.7kg so you can't throw it very far. Since the Germans had so much practice with their infantry getting overrun so frequently by tanks they seem to have developed a variety of tactics. The videos Green Tiger posted are good examples. Occupying a trench network will allow the infantry to move to a position to meet the tank. The Germans would stash the anti-tank weapons and screening devices at specific locations along the trench line. This way any members of the unit can get to the stash and use it. Typically, the front defense line used MG and artillery to suppress the infantry and strip them from their tanks forcing the tanks to advance without protection. Any tanks getting past the front line defenses would normally be into the defined anti-tank defense zone with flanking fire from concealed anti-tank guns. Putting the guns in the front line means they'd expose themselves too soon. Here is one of my favorite movie examples: YouTube link Wolfhag |
donlowry | 13 Aug 2020 9:22 a.m. PST |
No. Certainly not! The referee (or other official) should blow his whistle, throw his flag, and stop the fighting while the following adjustments are made: The infantry shall be penalized 10 yards/meters or half the distance to the tank's objective (whichever is less) and the infantry shall be ruled disrupted. Then combat may be resumed. (Sorry, I'm just suffering from the announcement that there will be no PAC-12 football this fall.) |
Legion 4 | 13 Aug 2020 9:47 a.m. PST |
Infantry should be allowed to attack a tank, especially in closed terrain. However, as pointed out by many in this forum, it should neither be automatic not easy. The nationality and the circumstances should have a big impact. as noted infantry need more than a rifle to kill a tank. If they have anti-tank weapons even if only Molotov Coacktails they can attack an unescorted tank at least in close country. Yes that is a given. Even in the '80s we were trained to attack AFVs with improvised weapons, e.g. the Molotov Cocktail, etc. Also note for gaming purposes, and I've played a large number of wargames since starting in the '60s. In many games it is a given that the Infantry has Close Assault AT capabilities/factor. Either improvised or issued. Of course it also depends on the war/era/time frame, etc. E.g. in 1940 vs. 1943, etc. |
Wolfhag | 13 Aug 2020 10:24 a.m. PST |
Don appears to be suffering from PTSD. Post Traumatic Sports Syndrome. Rugby in CA is canceled too. Wolfhag |
Garand | 13 Aug 2020 11:24 a.m. PST |
Zimmerit falls into the solution looking for a problem category. An awful lot of work went into it. "Despite the stated purpose of Zimmerit for protecting against magnetic mines, it's not clear that it actually worked. Neither the British, Russians, nor the Americans made any notable use of magnetic mines to counter German tanks."
The assumption by the Germans was that, if they had a magnetic mine, then so did the enemy. The Germans routinely tried to make their tanks resistent to their own weapons on the assumption that the enemy had weapons at least as capable. As another example, early in WWII German troops were sometimes issued a sensor for IR light, because the Germans had the capability of producing such a system (which they would later on in the war), so the assumption was that the enemy could too. The Allies did not have such a system, but it is a window into German military logic. Zimmerit existed for the same reason, & eventually dropped when it became evident that no one else was using magnetic mines, & the process added unnecessary weight & labor time. Regardless, the Germans had a number of close assault anti-tank weapons, from magnetic mines, to hand-tossed anti-tank grenades, to simply puling tellermines under the tracks of assaulting tanks. Damon. |
deadhead | 13 Aug 2020 11:31 a.m. PST |
I love the thick mud idea. Brilliant and never ever thought of it, heard of it, imagined it. A single tank, with no Infantry support, helpless once enemy get into the blind zone. Did anyone ever use a pistol port? I gather M4 crew insisted on them being reinstalled, after deletion, but never heard of anyone actually firing through one, in any army |
John the OFM | 13 Aug 2020 12:13 p.m. PST |
I've often marveled at why Engineers get enhanced AT capability for tank assault in Flames of War. A lot has to do with HOLLYWOOD of course. I imagined jamming a slide rule in the treads. The British value their Royal Engineers more, apparently. In FoW, they aren't allowed to assault tanks, and automatically retreat if assaulted by tanks. Interesting to learn the "real facts" about Zimmerit. I just assumed that since the Germans did it, it was automatically efficient. |
Blutarski | 13 Aug 2020 12:44 p.m. PST |
For the Germans, also: > satchel charges. > "Geballte Ladung" (4 or 6 stick grenade warheads fixed around a fuzed sticki grenade, used as an improvised demo charge. > A pair of smoke grenades connected by a length of rope and tossed in bolo-like fashion to (hopefully) wrap around the tank's gun barrel and blind it. B |
Andy ONeill | 14 Aug 2020 1:17 a.m. PST |
I think rules designers have assault or combat engineers in mind when giving bonusses on assaulting tanks. The assumption being they are more likely to have fun toys like explosives, mines, flamethrowers and more of them. The film "Infanterie gegen Panzer" has real german infantry veterans demomnstrating use of teller mines. Amongst other things. Anyone who hasn't watched it should take a look. If you already saw it, did you notice the fox hole construction? You could fit a 10 second delay fuse to a teller mine so you can throw it onto the back deck of a tank. Preferably under any turret overhang. Another technique was to throw the mine onto the track of a stationary tank. Between wheels. ww2 tanks stopped to fire and even when moving would often be creeping along at walking pace. |
Legion 4 | 14 Aug 2020 3:19 p.m. PST |
I think rules designers have assault or combat engineers in mind when giving bonusses on assaulting tanks. Not necessarily, based on the level of play. The CEs and Infantry would be handled as separate units, IMO. The Infantry in WWII, and later were trained to use improvise AT weapons & tactics. As Andy mentioned … Now at Platoon or more likely Company level you could have CEs attached to your unit under your command. I know … been there … did that … but not during WWII of course. Regardless it was a very rare attachment. |
Wolfhag | 14 Aug 2020 4:46 p.m. PST |
In WWII the Marines had a separate combat engineer unit with flamethrowers and demo men that would be attached to Platoons as needed or when you cold nag one. They would assault a bunker with the flamethrower hitting the structure mainly as a way to get the defenders to fall back inside so the demo man cold place his charge. Many of the bunkers had multiple sections and you had to blow each one. If you didn't blow them the Japs would infiltrate back in. It wasn't until Okinawa that they had a portable Flame Thrower, M2, is carried in the supply section of battalion headquarters for use by the squad when needed. Each Corporal with a demolition kit was in the Platoon CP. Post-WWII it was all in a Weapons Platoon at the Company Level. Wolfhag |
TacticalPainter01 | 14 Aug 2020 4:54 p.m. PST |
It's not that infantry couldn't assault tanks, the problem is that once you allow gamers to do that then it starts happening with far more frequency than it did historically. No rule survives first contact with a wargamer. Memoirs by combatants often refer to the close range required for PIAT, panzerfaust or bazooka requiring nerves of steel. How much more then to physically contact the tank and place a mine or satchel charge? Of course it happened, but to make a provision in a set of rules has the danger of suggesting that this was normal behaviour for infantry, when that wasn't the case. As a result players ‘abuse' the rule and a lot of ahistorical infantry on tank encounters develop. |
Legion 4 | 15 Aug 2020 7:49 a.m. PST |
Yes I could see that… Maybe just a die roll to see if the Infantry has any AT weapons/devices in their Squad/Fire Tm … |
TacticalPainter01 | 15 Aug 2020 10:01 p.m. PST |
I think the question you need to ask is, what are the rules trying to reflect? If you want fun and cinematic heroics then you can allow almost anything to happen for the sake of the players' enjoyment. On the other hand if you're trying to model typical cases of combined arms warfare then you need to be more circumspect about how you deal with atypical situations. Infantry relied on friendly armour, AT guns, artillery, mines, AT ditches, obstacles and their own light AT weapons to deal with armour. Close assault, if it's going to happen at all, is an act of desperate last resort for when the whole premise of combined arms warfare has collapsed. Personally I like the idea of rules where infantry seem helpless when confronted by armour, it forces players to think historically and ensure their infantry has adequate AT support. |
Andy ONeill | 16 Aug 2020 2:42 a.m. PST |
It seems kind of desperate sneaking up to a tank with a magnetic grenade. Even the early panzerfausts with maybe a 20 yard effective range seems borderline suicidal. Apparently not though. There's an account written by a german infantry officer about tank hunting. He said at first it was scary but once you got used to tanks it was easy to destroy unsupported tanks. He and his unit racked up quite a score. Maybe men in other units encountering tanks which had supporting infantry didn't survive to put pen to paper after the experience. |
Legion 4 | 16 Aug 2020 8:10 a.m. PST |
No doubt Infantry doing a Close Assault on an AFV can be a dicey undertaking. But it has been and could be done. E.g. 1979, US ARMY Infantry Officers Basic Course, Ft. Benning, GA. We would be put in a concrete round individual "foxhole", with an expended M72 LAW. Then an M60 MBT would run over the foxhole as I/we ducked inside. Then once the M60 had passed I/we would pop-up out of the hole and aim at the rear the MBT. Good training at that time period during the Cold War. In prep for the USSR/WP armored masses if they crossed the IGB. Of course we have and Dragons & TOWs in the unit as well. And this was not the case in WWII. They had far less AT capabilities in WWII [and even Korea], especially in the early years of the war. AT Guns then Bazookas, Panzerfaust, etc. As well as improvised AT devices. Our SGM in ROTC, '75-'79 used to say the best weapon against a tank is another tank. And in many cases it was probably true … He served in Korea & Vietnam. |
deadhead | 16 Aug 2020 1:15 p.m. PST |
Surely in WWII the best weapon, out in the open, against an AFV was always a well concealed, low profile A/T gun. With time that became an infantry launched rocket projectile (eg Yom Kippur War) or a helicopter (eg Vietnam 1972/3). Funny thing about tanks. Even by the end of WWII, if you asked US infantry what did they need, it was old fashioned Shermans with a 75 gun that fired HE and blew away buildings and MG nests. They had no interest in 17 pdr Fireflys that could knock out Tigers that the footsloggers never, ever, saw. Ask the tankers? Ah, that is different. But a lot more infantry, to win the war, than armour. Back then, Allied thinking was still that the tank was more infantry support than anti the other guy's tank. Back to 1939 thinking. Yes, I know. It put their poor tankers up against what were potentially far better, indeed invulnerable, tanks. Except the other guys' broke down, could not cross bridges, were massively outnumbered, could not rotate their turrets in a built up area etc……… |