Operational Discussion

[Charles22]

RERomine:

I confused the issue here with a mistake, by saying platoon instead of company. All of my armor is protected by four SPAAs as well as they can protect them. SPAAs protecting infantry will still shoot at anything that comes into range, so just because the other four SPAAs escort tracked infantry doesn't mean they still don't protect the tanks. The reverse is true also.

Mistake, okay. Place your AA as you please, but I'm telling you it's being wasted that way; true, it's not completely useless for protecting the tanks, but it could be a LOT more useful for protecting those AFV's. So while my early HT's seem to have pathetic AA ability, I'm not so sure you think that of yours. It's so pathetic that I easily forget that's not just a typical MG on there. So, if it's true you think you really gain anything in that way with those AA's, shouldn't that be sufficient, particularly for advances for infantry AA?

Just for sake of clarity and agreement, yes dismounted infantry is safer than being in tracks, open topped or not. If the battle threat was that one dimensional, life would be much easier. There are concerns about artillery and small arms fire to consider as well and they occur more often than air strikes. Now, you may have your game set so air strikes happen every battle. If that is the case, we are talking two very different situations.

Well it isn't me that is protecting infantry with AA. I'm not sure how I got it anymore, but you did seem awfully concerned about HT's protecting infantry from air and arti strikes. Naturally, I told you how HT's have no worries from strikes pretty much, but more worries if laden. As far as air strike regularity, I don't know, I'm going default with everything but the map and my force size (increased 10% over the default). My meeting engagement had 4 air wings available, if I wanted, against Poland. The AI can go really hogwild with AA at times, so I certainly wouldn't increase AI air beyond the default.

The unrealism aspect is in the game model and not reality. I know troops rode on tanks and have done it myself. If the only choice you have in your game is to ride, then by all means do it. I've done it in my game, but it's been more the exception than the rule. Typically, if I have no tracks close by and a leg unit has been blasted to bits and is almost done, I will use whatever I have to ride it quickly to a safe spot to save it. Tanks have served this purpose before when not involved in a fire fight. From the game perspective, it seems like you have just as much of a chance of surviving small arms fire on a tank as you would in a half-track. That just defies logic. If someone was shooting at you, would you want to be IN the armored box, even if the top is open, or ON it?

With respect to open topped vehicles, half-track or otherwise, you don't need AP to kill them if you get a top hit. FBs with HE can do it. An infantry squad on a hill firing down into it can do it. I've destroyed half-tracks with rifles this way. AP is only needed if you need significant armor penetration. Larger HE rounds can penetrate armor as well. A FB with HE rounds, it really would depend on the size of the round. You might still get penetration out of a 30mm HE round. I don't know for sure without checking.

Yes... but the tank typically has thicker armor (irrepective of how the game uses this) so "some" of the men, the minority anyway, would be protected by the turret. OTOH, anything, whether it hit the HT or not, that sounded ominuous, often would be enough to get the guys to bolt out. So while some of the riders of the tank might realize that angle of direct fire from the attacker, and therefore jump off (though some would jump off regardless) there are some if the squad commander would allow it, to be protected by the turret.

IOW, in one case there is no confidence in the protection of one, while the other in a limited degree would do the opposite. The difference is even more profound if we were talking the entire vehicle. Other than the tank possibly exploding, the tank, even if fairly thin-skinned, can provide really good direct-fire protection, though it obviously would be better on the ground than behind the turret. The HT on the other, is almost just as vulnerable to cause direct-fire harm to the passengers, whether they're in the HT or hiding behind it. It's just that undependable. It also is probably a given that the soldiers are more likely to stick close to the tank, whereas with the HT they are more likely to scatter from it. Naturally, if the HT has some respectable gun, say a 75mm, they could be more prone to hang closer.

Maybe the former treatment of riders (and who knows about the current treatment?) was to justify the fact that soldiers could hide behind many tanks relatively safely and that's why the losses to both AFV passengers looked the same. As well, there might had been a rider-friendly element of users who pushed and made some sense for riders not to suffer too greatly? I wouldn't say it was that protection by the frame of the tank was really used a great deal, but it wan't ignored either. As the game is set up, there is no way a squad can be protected by a tank hull, even in the same hex, so maybe that was another reason to move towards what is arguably too much protection of riders. The problem becomes more difficult if we are talking about direct HE fire on a ridered tank.

Oh yes, about the HT taking a top hit. I think part of what I was saying was that even if the HT were hit elsewhere, the FB's would cook it, due to the side armor being so weak too, and as you point out, some of the HE rounds could do that too. Of course I was talking about FB's because as I was explaining I was thinking for some reason the AI wouldn't even bother with ordinary fighters, but even ordinary fighters, should I see them only on a support screen, without looking indepth, might seem to my eyes to just have junky HE rounds, when in fact they may not.

In the manner you use them, they may be. The way I use them, they are useful. A general rule if thumb I use is, if they (any unit type) die all the time, they ARE useless. I ask you this, what is the penalty of having a non-combatant in your core? Does it take experience from a unit that would otherwise deserve it? If it does, you would have to prove it and I don't think there is any way to do so unless Andy or Don can confirm it one way or another. Your core is small enough that it's not taking up space that another unit would use. If you want the other combatant, just add it. Would your core be less deadly because of an ammo truck in it? No. If it was 100 tanks or 100 tanks and an ammo truck, you still have 100 tanks, no matter how you slice it. The ammo truck doesn't dull the effectiveness of your blade. It's just personal preference.

Having made that comment, you may now agree that you didn't take me in context, because otherwise you wouldn't be telling me now how useful ammo trucks are in core. Remember where that comment came, my statement was that they were much better used in support, because of any of the numerous reasons I gave, not the least of which from having no worthwhile benefit to the same unit being in support, due to experience neing gained in core could be going to a unit that could use it. naturally, you're Mr. Support, so you have to protect it from the likes of ammo trucks. So the proposition from me wasn't that they were totally useless, as you seem to make out (because I use them improperly allegedly) but that in terms of what you gain from a core unit, they were. Even a truck, another unit I rail against having incore is more useful there, because they "might" survive a hit to some degree. If I thought them truly useless, why would i have them. Let's be more precise here. They're a "waste" in core, but sometimes necessary in support.

We have been though all of this before and I already made it quite clear I thought. For some reason you feel your force lacks so much versatility, as I see it, that you are desparate to protect that support total. A lot more versatility comes when you have total combatants and not lame trucks as par of that core, but go ahead, don't believe me. And I already told you what I do with support, as I'm probably not even using half of it, as in my case I consider the totals available there somewhat embarassing. Adding a whole 33% to my force through support? Just disgusting. Well that's one way to over-protect a core anyway, that your support soaks up most of the fire. I'm not saying you do it for that purpose (lack of versatility you recall) but many have, probably including myself at some part of the distant past. Or perhaps people like innumerable air wings, or perhaps people like tons of easy arti; the excesses can be endless.

Let me see if I can make it plainer to you. You only add to the core when you're unsatisfied with it. For example, I contemplate I might add a pnzrshrk section when they are available. For now, my army isn't versatile enough without a decent bazooka type unit in core. At present there is one ATR, but they're pretty useles for the time being, but coming with the SS platoon I have I had no choice and still get SS. So how does you core's "fighting" versatility increase, by buying what is just as good in support? Go to battle two, no better are your ammo trucks. I buy them in support in both the first and second battle, and they're the same as yours.

The only "slight" advantage to ammo trucks I could see, and this could go for any unit, was if I could buy them singularly in core (assuming I wanted an odd amount of them, like one), but only by twos (as they are now) in support. Therefore I would have to spend less overall on ammo trucks to have them in core. Every turn they would cost me 27pts. instead of 54. Because while I despise having non-combatants in core, I also am aware that the enemy gets the same amount of points against me whereever I buy them. So my overall versatility would "possibly" improve, if I thought (and I'm real close to thinking that in '39), that I'm beter off facing 27pts. less of enemy by having only one ammo truck overall. It would ruin my ethos of only combatants in core, but it would possibly make me overall more effective in that I wouldn't have an extra truck for me that has often been a waste. As we know, the game doesn't allow different formations of the same thing being different between core and support, so it's a moot point anyway. In a sense, that 'is' possible, but there's one place, and one place alone that can occur, and I have already passed it. That is, when you intially pick you core, because I could had picked an ammo truck section with only 27pts left, thereby giving me only one of them total. Weeellll, I guess I will get by with what will sometimes be an extra one.

True, but with more experience, the AI will get more forces. You will have more targets to engage and consequently use more ammo. I don't know if it balances out or not. Your experience is such that you fire twice as fast and are twice as accurate, but face twice as many targets. If that's how it works, it balances out. Now, if you fire twice as fast and are only 50% more accurate, but still have twice as many targets, it won't balance. Unless you want to spend a lot of time testing it, you just have to get a feel for how it works. The Tiger isn't a good example in this case anyhow because they have a lot of ammo.

I think the Tiger FT armor is way too low, but we seem to keep getting that with every wargame anymore. Allied players ***** about the bogeyman Gerry player who unmercifully subjects them to a whole screenload of those unfair beasts! It will be editor for me come Tiger time, and when I play an allied nation, it will stay like I initially changed it to.