Inf vs Tanks...

[Tanker]

Ah... That.

But is largely the same thing.  Why did you let armor get that close to your infantry?  I would have popped smoke if nothing to fight them with.  But how many times have I killed tanks with infantry in GTOS for both times?  A lot.  But always looked to see what they had.  No anti tank, they are not sticking around to get mowed down. 

But a few more anti tank grenades is a good thing.  And why a platoon leader gets an HHL-3 never made a damned bit of sense.  With is an LT. charging a tank with an anti tank mine anyways? 

The smoke is a good idea.  Why did I let the tanks get that close?  Let's see, no anti tank weapons,and the tanks appeared in mg range suddenly.  Who gets out of a perfectly good trench and runs across an open field in clear view of a tank and it's weapons?  Trenches and foxholes (GTOS does not create those) should be adequate protection against mg fire and against tank HE shells (except direct hit). 

But you are missing the point.  Why do individual, buttoned (almost blind) tanks unaccompanied by infantry approach entrenched enemy infantry?  And why don't the entrenchments provide more protection against mg fire than they do?  The real point is this ai behavior and the vulnerability of entrenched infantry to tank fire, not my tactical prowess.

[Tanker]

That a Japanese soldier Andrey?  Nice find!!

[andrey12345]

That a Japanese soldier Andrey?  Nice find!!

I think US soldier, apparently avatar of someone from those who believe that ordinary soldiers could destroy the tanks in batches 

[andrey12345]

Forest, city, hedgerows, it doesn't matter.  Tanks are vulnerable by themselves in such environments.

Should the tank to come into the forest and it will be destroyed?  You do not think that you forget that still needs an AT weapon in the same place/range?

[wodin]

Andrey...in a forest the Tank has very little manueverbility. Infantry cna easily sneak up on a tank and a few well placed grenades will eithe rimmobilise it or destroy it. Many times Russian tanks broke through the German lines..only to be taken out by tank hunter engineer sqauds..and this was in '42. Jason marks book Into Oblivion mentions this srt of action a few times on the way to the Don bend. It usually happened in Forests. This also was just before the inritduction on magnetic mines. Instead they used normal Anti Tank mines or grenade bundles.

No one here I'm sure thinks Inf could take out Tanks in batches. However in certain enviroments it was extremely risky for Tanks. You could also say to many think the Tank was immune to Infantry.  Stalingrad and Cholm both show how Inf in Urban enviroments was bad news for tankers. Where it's possible for infantry to get close enough to attach mines or use grenade bundles then that's not a place a Tank should be.

Forests where always flushed out by Infantry for a reason.

[andrey12345]

Andrey...in a forest the Tank has very little manueverbility. Infantry cna easily sneak up on a tank and a few well placed grenades will eithe rimmobilise it or destroy it.

What type of grenades?

Many times Russian tanks broke through the German lines..only to be taken out by tank hunter engineer sqauds..and this was in '42. Jason marks book Into Oblivion mentions this srt of action a few times on the way to the Don bend. It usually happened in Forests.

The bend of the Don is not a lot of forests, mildly speaking - as there steppe.

Let's not quote storytellers. Let us specific examples where and when that confirmation by the enemy.

[Flashburn]

If the infantry have Anti tank grenades, they most certainly can kill tanks.  In forests is perfect for this, and it can work if they can get close enough.  

People seem to think tanks are really blind.  There are blind spots for sure.  But you have to get to them.  Which means getting with in like, 15 meters.  That is, under the periscopes vision range. And I would point out, that if its a type where you can adjust the mirror you can always move it to see a bit better close in.  In front of the tanks turret, the game is probably more generous than reality.  But some tanks are better than others at this.  A panzer 3 or 4 with its excellent cupola gives great 360 degree vision.  All the commander has to do is remember to scan and not get fixed for to long on one thing.   Now, an early t34 is no where near as good.   It does get a periscope that turns 360, but you have to turn the thing manually.  And how you see behind you is going to be an issue unless commander is really flexible.  If you can sneak in infantry in MIUS, not quite the same in GTOS, within really close range, the tank is pretty much blind to them on the rear and flanks.  Sent enough infantry that close in to see that they do not get targeted there.  Gun might swing over, but tanks seem to not see them.  But with tanks that are have not gotten tracks blown off or some such, the tank will often figure out where infantry are and turn the hull towards them.  And the guys in the lower hull up front most certainly see them.  

I did serve on retro armored cars in a combat zone.  These things where pretty primitive and where more like ww2 tanks than modern fighting vehicles.  Like no stabilized gun, a simple fire control system that used manual elevation and power traverse using a freaking 25 cent toggle switch, 360 degree periscopes and only a night vision sight for night.  We used spot lights mainly.  But this stupid thing did give me a retro look at ww2 fighting vehicles and how they did their thing.  Let me tell you, an M1117 is nothing like an M3a2 or M3a3 Bradley scout fighting vehicle.  

[Flashburn]

Mius Front tank killing. Or trying too, with infantry.  Where I remembered to try and take screens.  



HHL-3...



Flame thrower..    Not exactly an anti tank weapon.  But it works!


45mm anti tank grenade from launcher.  



Satchel charge from pioneers.


More satchel charges...



Satchel that got hung up on fence, next blew track off.  


Killed with 2 HHL-3's.  A weapon too rare in MIUS IMO...



Not sure.  Probably an HHL-3.  But could have been a grenade launcher.  Or even 6 stick grenade.  Whatever it was it worked.






KV was totally blind here.  And where it was finally killed from.  



30mm rifle fired grenade launcher.  and what finally started an engine fire somehow.





All killed with infantry anti tank weapons.



More improper use of flame thrower.



Another tank killed with flame thrower.  



This attacked failed.  I should have come in from rear.  But grenade squad fired like 30 45mm anti tank grenades at this guy.  But they all lived threw in.  Used recon (with modifiers) command to sneak in.  



mobility killed....

Others too, like Red Army engineers I used on a bunch of Marders.  But forgot to take screens.  

But I do think to few anti tank grenades out there.  But when they DO  have them, if used right, it works.  Note, that most of this infantry VS tank was at night.  Darker the better.  During day, where I set up positions where a tank would have a hard time seeing them in trenches/buildings.  And far enough away, while still close to main infantry to not get suppressed if main position gets spotted or engaged.  Not always easy this one...

[chaudard]

A (not real) movie with inf vs tank...
https://youtu.be/OVvoo1qFPDo?t=3m51s

[Tanker]

Forest, city, hedgerows, it doesn't matter.  Tanks are vulnerable by themselves in such environments.

Should the tank to come into the forest and it will be destroyed?  You do not think that you forget that still needs an AT weapon in the same place/range?

As I stated earlier in the post that you misinterpreted or ignored, of course some weapon is needed.  That is obvious and does not need saying.  That weapon could be improvised however.  Examples are TNT, gasoline, track jamming.

@Flashburn: those are encouraging screen shots.  Maybe things have changed in MF.  I never really saw such action from German infantry in GTOS.

Do you feel that entrenched infantry is too vulnerable to mg fire?

[davidx]

Hello,

In general, attacking tanks using infantry with small arms, is not a tactic. It is a situational necessity or act of desperation.
In general, attacking infantry with small arms using tanks, is an excellent tactic.

regards,

[Tanker]

Hello,

In general, attacking tanks using infantry with small arms, is not a tactic. It is a situational necessity or act of desperation.
In general, attacking infantry with small arms using tanks, is an excellent tactic.

regards,

True, as far as it goes. 
Again satchel charges, grenade bundles andAT grenades are not small arms. 
The discussion at hand is not about tactics, it is precisely about the situational necessity of a tank approaching an entrenched infantry position that the infantry does not wish to retreat from.

Attacking infantry in the open using tanks is an excellent tactic.  Attacking entrenched infantry may be less so.  Generally tanks alone would not be sufficient to root out an entrenched and determined infantry force.  That's why combined arms is used.

[andrey12345]

Forest, city, hedgerows, it doesn't matter.  Tanks are vulnerable by themselves in such environments.

Should the tank to come into the forest and it will be destroyed?  You do not think that you forget that still needs an AT weapon in the same place/range?

As I stated earlier in the post that you misinterpreted or ignored, of course some weapon is needed.  That is obvious and does not need saying.  That weapon could be improvised however.  Examples are TNT, gasoline, track jamming.

@Flashburn: those are encouraging screen shots.  Maybe things have changed in MF.  I never really saw such action from German infantry in GTOS.

Do you feel that entrenched infantry is too vulnerable to mg fire?

Machine gun is a basic weapon to infantry suppression. In the trenches or not, when the infantry under heavy machine-gun fire, it binds its actions. And, accordingly, no question that the soldiers run on the tanks.
This is done in both GTOS and GTMF

[andrey12345]

Again satchel charges, grenade bundles andAT grenades are not small arms.  

Small small
all this things have a very limited range. Tank even moving at ~20 km/h speed cross this range for a few seconds and there is no chance to change something.

That's why combined arms is used.

This "combined arms" called artillery
Combined arms infantry is used to take ground in most cases.

[Tanker]

Forest, city, hedgerows, it doesn't matter.  Tanks are vulnerable by themselves in such environments.

Should the tank to come into the forest and it will be destroyed?  You do not think that you forget that still needs an AT weapon in the same place/range?

As I stated earlier in the post that you misinterpreted or ignored, of course some weapon is needed.  That is obvious and does not need saying.  That weapon could be improvised however.  Examples are TNT, gasoline, track jamming.

@Flashburn: those are encouraging screen shots.  Maybe things have changed in MF.  I never really saw such action from German infantry in GTOS.

Do you feel that entrenched infantry is too vulnerable to mg fire?

Machine gun is a basic weapon to infantry suppression. In the trenches or not, when the infantry under heavy machine-gun fire, it binds its actions. And, accordingly, no question that the soldiers run on the tanks.
This is done in both GTOS and GTMF

Sure I can agree it would suppress them but not kill them if they don't expose themselves.  In GTOS they are always standing up and getting killed.  That means you don't need infantry to assault their position only tanks because they will all stand up and be killed by tanks.

[Tanker]

Again satchel charges, grenade bundles andAT grenades are not small arms.  

Small small
all this things have a very limited range. Tank even moving at ~20 km/h speed cross this range for a few seconds and there is no chance to change something.

That's why combined arms is used.

This "combined arms" called artillery
Combined arms infantry is used to take ground in most cases.

We have been talking about stationary tanks, surrounded by enemy infantry.  I would agree that moving tanks would be much less vulnerable to these types of weapons.

In GTOS I don't need infantry to take ground.  All I need is some artillery and some tanks.  The entrenchments seem to provide very little cover.  The tanks are great killers of entrenched infantry.
I wonder how the 101st Airborne Division held on so well in Bastogne.

[andrey12345]

We have been talking about stationary tanks, surrounded by enemy infantry.  

This is a rare case, and so that it occurs, does not need any forest, bushes or buildings.

I would agree that moving tanks would be much less vulnerable to these types of weapons.

Practically zero, unless if every soldier have such AT tools, and all this soldiers have steel balls are placed thickly on the tank way.

In GTOS I don't need infantry to take ground.  All I need is some artillery and some tanks.  

This is not so, as tanks and artillery have a poor caps to capture squares.

The entrenchments seem to provide very little cover.  

They provide shelter as they should. It is not wonderful armor, 99% of the cover is given the possibility to hide behind a small ground screen.

The tanks are great killers of entrenched infantry.

Yes, they have weapons with much more range than any soldier with a grenade or mine.
Therefore, the best AT tool for infantry it is AT gun.

Yes, you can take into account grenades, but in the extreme case, it is essentially a last chance weapon. They gives some moral stability, but difficult to use.

[Tanker]

We have been talking about stationary tanks, surrounded by enemy infantry.  

This is a rare case, and so that it occurs, does not need any forest, bushes or buildings.

It is good enough that it does happen.  It's even more egregious when it happens in those surroundings.

I would agree that moving tanks would be much less vulnerable to these types of weapons.

Practically zero, unless if every soldier have such AT tools, and all this soldiers have steel balls are placed thickly on the tank way.

Again we agree.

In GTOS I don't need infantry to take ground.  All I need is some artillery and some tanks.  

This is not so, as tanks and artillery have a poor caps to capture squares.

You are correct. I should have said I don't need infantry to kill entrenched enemy infantry.
Many battle accounts from WW2 show how well entrenched infantry stand up to bombardment and are ready to fight soon after the bombardment is over.
This is not the case in GTOS.  Often tank or spg bombardment is enough to kill most entrenched infantry.  This is atypical.

The entrenchments seem to provide very little cover.  

They provide shelter as they should. It is not wonderful armor, 99% of the cover is given the possibility to hide behind a small ground screen.

Trenches should provide more cover and protection than they do from mg and tank cannon fire.

The tanks are great killers of entrenched infantry.

Yes, they have weapons with much more range than any soldier with a grenade or mine.
Therefore, the best AT tool for infantry it is AT gun.

Again I think tanks can kill entrenched infantry too easily see above. 

Yes, you can take into account grenades, but in the extreme case, it is essentially a last chance weapon. They gives some moral stability, but difficult to use.

Agreed

[Flashburn]

Took some doing but finally killed some German tanks with Red Army soldiers.  Engineers in this case.  Has to be SOME soldiers with RPG-40 in big campaign, but not found even one yet.  Not even going to try and use KS bottles on buttoned up tanks.  No faith that it will work.  But Marders.... oh my yes.  Where are you Marders. 






I lost freaking 4 T34's to a couple pak 40 75mm.  But was able to kill one panzer 3 and mob kill the other 2 before I was able to get the left overs out.  So sent in an engineer squad to deal with them.  It worked.  7 charges. 2 dead tanks and 1 member of squad killed in blast I think.  Or something.  Hope they got a medal. 

[wodin]

Flashburn..love those screenshots. I reckon it would have taklen alot of time and patience to get this many if playing GTOS. GTMF has def improved in this area.