Infantry knocking out tanks...

[Orctrader]

Just read a book on the battle of Kursk and plenty of first-hand accounts of tanks being knocked out by infantry  - both sides.  Molotovs, magnetic and sticky mines, anti-tank grenades.

I was wondering if the rules reflect how easy it was to "kill" a tank at close quarters?

(I only paint... )

[FramFramson]

Just read a book on the battle of Kursk and plenty of first-hand accounts of tanks being knocked out by infantry  - both sides.  Molotovs, magnetic and sticky mines, anti-tank grenades.

I was wondering if the rules reflect how easy it was to "kill" a tank at close quarters?

(I only paint... )

This is exactly why tanks normally require infantry support in any close quarters situation and even some semi-open engagements.

Pure tank vs tank only happened in wide open country.

[Cubs]

I've had this discussion before, years ago, on the old Warlord site, with someone who insisted that a medium tank or above should be invulnerable to infantry that don't have specialist anti-tank weapons. I disagreed.

I think terrain is very important here. In a built-up area, a wood or other terrain where infantry can remain hidden in close range to a tank, any sort of AFV is going to be vulnerable. There were cases of cheeky infantry taking a crew prisoner by simply climbing onto a tank and tapping on the hatch until a curious commander opens it up to see who's there!

Sit on the top, sides or back and the crew won't be able to see you. Shoot out or obscure the viewing slits and they're blind and basically dead in the water. Wedge something hard and nasty into the tracks and they're immobile. Even non-penetrating concussive hits to the hull could render the crew inoperative or, if sustained, break their morale until they retreat or surrender. You don't necessarily have to break the vehicle itself to take it out of the battle. And of course if you're equipped with something specially designed to counter armour, it's a lot easier to carefully apply it where it's going to do the most damage, instead of flinging it madly at the tank in a rush. 

Of course, this makes the assumption that the infantry basically have free reign to scamper over the tank without interruption. Infantry or other AFV's in support can easily 'scratch its back' with MG fire to clear enemy soldiers from a tank. So I'd say it would have to be a pretty specific set of circumstances in which an unsupported AFV was in terrain (or climate conditions) that gave the advantage to infantry, allowing them to get up close and personal without being gunned down first, and the infantry themselves would have to be willing to take the initiative and use whatever means they could. But given those circumstances, it was very possible.

[MartinR]

As noted, terrain is vital here. Close terrain is very bad for unsupported tanks as enemy infantry can get very close indeed.

I was just reading Tactical notes for the employment of Army Tank Battalions, and they note that woods, enclosures and villages present particular problems for armour and are best neutralised by artillery fire or alternatively by suppressive fire on the edges of the obstacle to allow the infantry to come up.

At Kursk, the trench systems produced much the same effect, if the supporting infantry had been stripped away by artillery or small arms.

[grant]

A PIAT could most certainly take out a Panther.

Infantry can do it.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/gal/vcg-gcv/bio/smith-ea-eng.asp

[FramFramson]

Who needs a PIAT when you've got a saucepan, an axe, and balls so large they have a higher calibre than naval guns?

cases of cheeky infantry taking a crew prisoner by simply climbing onto a tank and tapping on the hatch until a curious commander opens it up to see who's there!

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/ivan-pavlovich-sereda-ussrs-heroic-cook.html

[cuprum]

Fight against tanks | German educational film in 1944

[Mako]

It can be done, as noted above, if you have the guts to try.

Much easier with a bazooka, panzerfaust, panzerschreck, PIAT, etc., etc., which you can reach out and touch the tank with.  Flamethrowers too. 

Ideally, you'd want to attack from the flank or rear, whenever possible, but a lot of men at roadblocks fired from the front, from some accounts I've read.  Lots of misses at even close range, no doubt due to jitters, crude weapons sights, etc..

As for using mines, sticky bombs, molotov cocktails, broomsticks (just kidding with the last one), you'd really have to be pretty brave to do that.

I remember hiking in the country near my home, where they were clearing trees and brush, in order to put in a new road, and was amazed at how much the ground shook from the heavy construction equipment they were using.  Felt like I was walking on pudding, the ground was shaking so much, from vehicles a few hundred yards away. 

No doubt, WWII tanks were a lot heavier, and made the ground shake a lot more, up close.

I'd say troops wanting to get up close and personal need to pass a morale check, and that half of their normal rating should be used, if they want to use crude, short to zero range weapons, like sticky bombs, teller mines, magnetic mines, anti-tank grenades, etc..

Give them one chance to pass (perhaps two at most), otherwise they flee.

As mentioned, tanks are pretty good at using their MGs to keep infantry away from their friends, in all but the worst circumstances, e.g. zero visibility from night, heavy smoke, etc..  In the case of smoke grenades/artillery, I suspect they'd fire blindly, anticipating it is being used for a tactical purpose.

There's a set of rules for this type of streetfighting - individual man vs. tank combat.  Can't think of the name right now.

Thought it was Panzerfaust, or Panzerknacker, but can't seem to find them right now.  Perhaps someone else knows what they were called.  There are others popping up with that name, that aren't it.

They were a small, paperback booklet, folio type rules set.

[cuprum]

The usual exercise in the Russian army (I think in any other same thing)

[cuprum]

The defeat of the BTR, which are trying to break the street barricades, using the Molotov cocktail.

[Daeothar]

Absolutely.

I've mentioned it eleswhere before, but back when I was an infantry sergeant, my squad once got tank-shocked by an opposing M60 during an excesize in Germany. It simply drove about 100m from the road it was on, across a rough field to the treeline we were prone in; a chance spot by the crew I reckon. We were but a light recon unit, no AT capability at all, so they went at us just for the heck of it I suppose.

The deafening sound, the shaking ground and enormous, looming hull had us retreating further back into the woods once it came too close for comfort; it was doing about 40kmph and drove up to about 5m from the treeline. Luckily it did not fire (it was a MILES excersize), as I'm sure we'd have been wiped out to a man.

Apparently, in a real situation, they would not have stopped at the treeline, but would have smashed right through, trying to run us over. They were just 30cm diameter pine trees, and I'm certain it could have snapped them like twigs. I later learned that they did not fire because using explosive rounds on such a soft target as we were, was considered a waste of ammo; better to save the shell and leave us as red-brown stains on their tracks.

Several of my men were truly shaken by the experience, and I must admit to too nervous laughter myself, once we had retreated two rallypoints back into the forest. So based on this single encounter, I would not recommend any infantry unit to take on a tank frontally.

Ever.

Even with AT capabilities, you'd be much better off taking them in the flank or rear. They're not nearly as scary from those perspectives, and also much more vulnerable to any AT weapon...

[Orctrader]

The video on the Tanks\APCs burning.  Ties in with some first-hand accounts from the Russian side in the book.  "Surprised how easily tanks would burn..." After they had used Molotovs.

Both sides, the infantry seemed to have specific training to deal with tanks. They were well used to being "up close" before encountering them in actual combat. 

As has already been said, both sides sought to have plenty of their own infantry around their tanks and seemed to accept their vulnerability without this when close to enemy infantry.

[Volleyfire!]

The Folgore at Alamein lacked any AT guns that could knock out British tanks, unless they had 88mm in support, so they resorted to using AT hand grenades and molotov cocktails. They had to isolate the tanks first by suppressing their supporting infantry, which was fairly easy to do as attacks were mainly at night and there was so much smoke and dust raised the infantry sometimes became separated from their tanks anyway. After that it was a case of using molotov cocktails and stoking the fires once they started.

[Cat]

A handy log will help in a pinch!

[Tim]

Who needs a PIAT when you've got a saucepan, an axe, and balls so large they have a higher calibre than naval guns?

Well this made me really laugh and I'm still smiling.