*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 12:48:55 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686601
  • Total Topics: 118110
  • Online Today: 626
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: Infantry knocking out tanks...  (Read 2799 times)

Offline Tim

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 135
Re: Infantry knocking out tanks...
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2018, 02:05:50 AM »
A lot of really helpful posts here.  Thanks Orctrader for posting and to everyone else for their replies.  One thing I'm hoping some folks may comment on is what kind of close combat capability (apart from assignments of AT rifles, or bazookas and the like) infantry might have in a game.  Should it be standard for all types of infantry for all situations/scenarios or depend on various considerations?  Some of those considerations I can think of - I'm sure there's more - are below, but these could complicate the game or game set up.
  • Would troops moving on the attack be as well equipped with close in AT measures (molotovs, satchel charges, strung together grenades, or, in the case of the Germans, magnetic mines) as compared to troops on the defence?  The WWII videos posted by Cuprem, for example, seem to emphasize men against tanks on the defence.  Similar sort of thing perhaps for the BTR videos.
     
  • I expect time period of the war in which the game is being played would be a factor - my reading suggests early war infantry would be far more reluctant to engage a tank than in later war when close-in vulnerabilities were more appreciated.
     
  • If available, would all troops in the scenario have the above mentioned weapons?  For example, what Daeothar describes? (BTW, the diesels of the Leopards and M60s made the ground shake and make huge bass-like noises such that you could not tell the direction - I seem to recall that the M1A1s I encountered in West Germany in the mid to late 80s didn't really do that, you just heard the tracks squealing loudly - I always thought something was lost there.  :) )
     
  • I know some rules specify flame throwers are used by specific troops (engineers - something I disagree with for FTs, BTW), would it be similar for close in AT measures?
     
  • How do you define close terrain on the table where there are different ground and model/figure scales?

I guess number one is my most important question.  I really don't have a clue - I can't base what infantry can carry along based on my own physical shape any more due to age and fatness, that's for sure!  :-[

For number two, one might have to pass a morale roll of some type to get so close to a tank to perform the attack.  Perhaps very difficult or not at all early war and easier as time gets by and for certain types of troops (veteran, elite for example).

For number three and four might make game/scenario set up difficult and may well be too fiddly for many.

For five, I guess if there is some kind of opportunity fire provision in the game (say like Crossfire, which I mainly play) along with specific fields of view for individual tanks, the line of sight rules will probably make defining close terrain unnecessary.  Of course, if one is playing higher level games where a single tank model represents two or more, a sub-unit or unit size, then definition of what areas on the table are close terrain would need to be defined.

Anyway, sorry for the babble, but again, I'd appreciate any comments, especially on issue number one.  Thanks in advance!
« Last Edit: September 19, 2018, 02:51:23 AM by Tim »
--
Tim

Offline Ultravanillasmurf

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 9305
    • Ultravanillasmurf
Re: Infantry knocking out tanks...
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2018, 08:01:43 AM »
Your first question is interesting.
Defenders would be able to cobble together a selection of exciting items and choose their attack location to make the most of their knowledge of the terrain, attackers would lack that knowledge and would have to carry their weapons over a  distance.

On the other hand, if you were attacking a known defensive position containing tanks, you would concentrate your available resources on that position.

My thoughts are that defending a location with improvised AT weaponry should give you a slightly improved capability, just not much (maybe a reroll).

On the second, my feeling is that infantry are not going to be keen on attacking a tank whatever period unless they have suitable weapons and required training. Early war tanks were pretty rubbish (infantry class tanks excepted), with biscuitinium armour and lots of bits to break off. They were just frightening. Later war tanks were more scary and effective and the troops are more likely to be more wary than scared (retreat rather than rout). As mentioned above, they are still scary bits of kit, even today. Serious morale rolls to even contemplate standing against them rather than retreating.

Up until recently anything with tracks was a winner, it has only been the advent of readily available RPGs and dubious hereafter insurance that has led to additional protection being required.

Of course experience, training and suitable equipment will assist (probably why BA gives Tank Hunter in addition to AT weapons).

Third question, it would depend on the scenario.

Specialist kit does require specialist training.

Common sense and consensus probably are the best way of defining Close Terrain. You are correct that ground scale affects what is close terrain, if terrain is defined as a town, then that is probably close terrain.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2018, 08:10:03 AM by Ultravanillasmurf »