"Understanding tank vs infantry combat" Topic

It is hard to see anything from inside a tank if the hatches are closed. Ignoring game balance and point costs, would it be reasonable to give tank teams a malus of -1 when shooting at infantry and gun teams?
And how about assaults?

Good question and at first blush makes sense to reduce shooting – as to close assault, probably would as well (i.e. well done a close assault on the rear of the tank would be tough to see)

You're arguing for "realism" in Flames of War. That's a hopeless cause.

This

@Schwabian Grenadier:
You done?
I know what it is, it is a war GAME. As I mentioned I do ignore points and ingame balance, cause I donīt have a hard pressed time table for a game. I am looking for ideas to make the game more realistic. I do not expect to have a fully realistic wargame.
Pardon me, but I am tired of that talk, heard that even 15 years ago.

Sorry I answered before I read your second posting.

I am not sure what you mean with the "problem that didnīt exist."

" Did assaults actually occur in "real life" as often as they do in a game?"
I played a ton of V1 and V2 games, not so many V3. I dislike V4.
I used to play US Armoured Rifles fielding 5 bazookas. Nobody assaulted them in several years I played.
I played versus US paratroopers. You could replace Rifles with Bazookas and attach additional bazookas from the weapon platoons. Nebelwerfer was the normal answer, and flamers. I never attacked them with tanks unless I was desperate or the Paras were down to less than five teams.

If you put objectives into meaningfull places like a little town, the game changes completely. I really hate it when people are not willing to put in some pre-game communication or a little work to create a scenario. So there is no hopelessness in a rule system. Only lack of effort and imagination.

In my experience, rules allow AFV crews to see too much of what is going on outside their vehicle. A negative penalty makes sense to me.

+1 79PA

Don't forget to take into account the pants pooping fear that armor often gave infantry. That itself might be incorporated in crunching the numbers.

I think before you start tweaking someone else's rules it's best to understand their reasoning behind values, what overall influenced them what is abstracted or not considered at all. Much of rules writing is subjective to the author based on his experience, knowledge, and bias. I think that goes for all of us, me too. It would also be good to understand why the designer didn't implement your suggestion or how it is maybe already covered or abstracted.

My opinion is that in a buttoned-up tank, you are not "blind" as many people say. My experience sitting in commander locations buttoned up is that your Situational Awareness in the 20-degree aspect you are looking at is pretty good out to a limited range. But almost completely blind in the other 340 degrees so you need to swivel. If you are advancing in formation with infantry support and flanks secure all you really need is that frontal view. However, without enhanced optics, your sight distance could be limited.

Most Allied tanks had roof-mounted panoramic periscopes with a field of view up to 60 degrees and 4x power. The T-34/85 and Sherman had one for the gunner and commander. The British and Russian periscopes had the capability to quickly look directly in the rear without the crewman turning around. Optics quality matters too. Early war Russian observation optics were pretty bad.

Each vehicle would have a sector to observe and fire into so a 40-60 degree field of view should be more than adequate and hopefully overlap. On the other hand, most tanks are completely blind if you are within 20-30 yards of them.

Then there is what definition of buttoned up and unbuttoned are you using. Unbuttoned can be anything from the commander standing tall with his entire torso exposed to the commander popping in and out taking a quick peek every 5-10 seconds. If the tank is engaged and shooting the commander is probably going to have tunnel vision to the front and be unaware of everything else around him.

In tanks with one or two-man turrets, the commander was the gunner or loader so when engaged he was generally locked down and would have a lower Situational Awareness than normal. That's about a worst-case scenario as you'll run into except maybe the French one-man turrets.

I think the biggest advantage of unbuttoned is enhanced Situational Awareness that should cover your frontal 180 degrees. Some "experts" have said being buttoned up reduces your effectiveness by 40%.

As a result of rounds exploding in the vicinity, one doesn't hear the gun's report at all in the tank. It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain. If he happens to look halfway to the left while an enemy anti tank gun opens fire halfway to the right, his eyes will subconsiciously catch the shimmer of the yellow gun flash. His (the tank commander) attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time. Everything depends on a prompt identification of a dangerous target Usually seconds decide. What I said above also applies to tanks that have been equipped with periscopes."

Quote from Otto Carius Tigers in the Mud

Regarding infantry and tank assault I think you need to do more research.

Hey, it's a game, if it feels good do it.

Wolfhag

@Wolfhag:
thanx for the extensive answer.
Unfortunately the battlefront forum is non-existing, so I cannot try to get feedback from the designers anymore. But I at least have read all designers notes in the rule books V1-V4.

Nowaddays it is only a game imho, look how the designer notes have changed, now it is supposed to be a fast fun game, not a replay of historical battles.
My main interest in tweaking the rules is to make the team work between infantry and tanks more necessary, I like the telephone rule from "Cobra". I would love to implement something similar for Sturmgeschuetze.
The better view of Panzergrenadiere from their halftracks in comparison to tanks is even part of their job describtion (H.DV 299/4a).

Concerning tank assaults I thought that (german) tanks were supposed to drive through the actual infantry infested battle line and go for the soft stuff like headquarters and supply. Which is somehow depicted with the objectives in a FoW game.
I can live with the deadliness of tank assaults if my "battle babies" have enough bazookas, but I am still not sure how a tank assault really happened. So can you point me to sources besides "Smashing Hitlers Panzers" from Zaloga?

There is a mid war German training film "Men Against Tanks" which demonstrates various anti tank methods prior to the deployment of panzerfausts etc. You can find it on uTube.

The most notable feature is that they require the tanks to stop, against moving vehicles, not a chance. Which is why roadblocks, and aniti tank obstacles are so important.

As someone else commented, tanks are also really, really scary, something not to be underestimated. I am always mindful of Charles McDonald's comment in "Company Commander", 'Please God, don't let there be any tanks". He and his company were terrified of German tanks, even though they had shed loads of bazookas.

What I found in FM17-10:
"Offensive operations of
armored units, acting either alone or as part of a combined
force, are characterized by rapid thrusts into vital parts
of the hostile rear followed by immediate exploitation to
complete enemy demoralization."

"The assault is made simultaneously by all tanks of the platoon except
those engaged in reducing antitank fire. It is made at maxi-
mum speed with the maximum volume of fire from all weap-
ons. The assault is continued until the objective is over-
run. After overrunning the objective, the platoon leader
assembles his platoon under cover at the designated rallying
point where he may quickly reform and again attack in the
reverse direction or may reorganize for future missions."

What underlines a minus 1 for shooting:
"c. Since tanks furnish the striking power of armored units
it is necessary to understand and keep constantly in mind
their capabilities and limitations in the assignment of mis-
sions.
…
e. The limitations are-
…
(9) Fire from moving vehicles is limited in its casualty
effect."

In Fow the moral effect of tanks is shown in the mandatory moral test if you want to assault tanks.

This is actually a pretty good movie of a prepared Russian defense against a tank attack: YouTube link

Also, the attacker should have identified the defender's strong points and eliminated them before the attack. Idealy, the prep barrage is lifted just as the tanks arrive and catch the defenders coming out of their holes still disorganized.

The defender's main goal is to separate the infantry from the tank by suppressing them and channelize the tanks into a kill/mine zone and/or allowing the tanks to advance past them into the anti-tank gun belt defense zone behind them. The longer the tanks take to attack the infantry the more time the defenders will have to conduct a counterattack. In a well-prepared and executed tank defense, it will be tankers pooping in their pants.

Infantry caught unprepared with no defenses other than bazookas should be terrified.

Wolfhag

a pretty good movie of a prepared Russian defense

I did not watch the whole movie, but the infantry looks pretty successfull so far.
So let me repeat, better rephrase my question:
Isnīt a tank crew less able to identify gun and infantry teams than an infantry team or the crew of a open-topped vehicle?
The only answer I can imagine was and is:
Yes, the tank crew has a harder time to etc etc.
Is the distinction big enough to demand a minus 1 in shooting or assaulting? That might be a matter of interpretation, so there is no wrong or right.
Would that mean that I tinker with an obsolete rule set (talking bout V3!)?
Yes, guilty as charged.
I also play napoleonics, everybody is tweaking rules in his personal flavour there…

What would be the consequences if tank teams are less able to kill inf and guns?
Reconnaisance and close support from (mechanized) inf would be necessary.
Something like combined warfare would be advised.
I cannot see any negative in that if there is no 90 minute time schedule for a game.

I did not watch the whole movie, but the infantry looks pretty successfull so far.

Yes, it's a Russian movie so the Russians win.

In a well-prepared trench, the defenders will have the Situational Awareness advantage and know where to consolidate where the tanks will cross/attack. Generally, anti-tank weapons were stockpiled in places along the trenches for the defenders to access as needed.

Tank blind spots. As you can see if the infantry knows where the tank will cross there is almost no way the tank can detect them. If the infantry is accompanying the tanks then it's not a problem for the tanks as the infantry should be able to handle the situation with their help.

If you examine the blind spots you have to ask yourself what is the tank going to shoot at the infantry in trenches if they are within 25m? The crew can toss grenades out of their hatch and fire SMGs, that's about all.

If the defenders have an anti-tank gun belt behind the trenches the best tactic is to let the tanks roll over you and be prepared for the infantry.

Without infantry support, I'd expect the tanks would want to roll over and get past the trenches ASAP as dogtail suggested.

You're arguing for "realism" in Flames of War. That's a hopeless cause. Do you know why FoW did not include your suggestion in the rules? My opinion is the game rules are so abstract and subjective that any modifier you want can be included if it makes the game better for you.

My suggestion would be when a tank crosses a trench determine (card or die roll) what type of anti-tank weapon it gets attacked with (molotov cocktail, anti-tank mine, rocket launchers, grenade bundles, etc).

Wolfhag