Infantry anti-tank weapons?

[Tanker]

I agree that they are a last chance weapon.  But why not allow that last chance to the infantry?  No tank commander would willingly place his tank in a constricted area (woods, village streets) without infantry support in WWII.  Gasoline bombs, mines and explosive were effective close range anti tank weapons when the target had limited vision, and manuevering space, and they were unprotected by infantry.  The Germans produced and used zimmerit because of this fear.  They stopped using it after 9 months because they believed (incorrectly) that it might catch fire under shell impacts.  The Britsh also studied it's use but did not employ it.  So there was concern about close in, non bazooka/faust, type assault against tanks.

Part of the reason they don't exist today is that man portable infantry anti-armor weapons are available that are much much superior.  RPGs, AT missles etc are abundant now.  But one form that is akin to these close in assault weapons is the IED.  This is used very effectively against armored vehicles in constricted areas or routes.

I don't have tank loss statistics at hand but I would think you are right about numbers.  It stands to reason that most tanks were lost to other tanks and AT guns and that very few were by direct assault.    Perhaps part of the reason for these statistics are not due to the efficacy of the weapon entirely, but to the avoidance of these situations by tank crews.  It's easier to avoid areas conducive to infantry ambush than it is to avoid an AT Gun.

My only point in all this is that now tanks can blunder about, at night, half blind, without infantry support, in a forest or village with no fear of being attacked or disabled by infantry if they have no AT guns.  I think this is a little unrealistic.  Tanks were not invincible steel fortresses that could blindly ignore hidden infantry.

[andrey12345]

Last chance is not last 100% chance  , but 1-3% chance if soldiers have a good morale, no wounds, experienced and dont take a fire.
Remember that the cumulative mine weighs 3 kg, and it should to throw to moving tank and get into it.
Best way ambush and retreat. If your soldiers taking fire it is too late.

[andrey12345]

I agree that they are a last chance weapon.  But why not allow that last chance to the infantry?  No tank commander would willingly place his tank in a constricted area (woods, village streets) without infantry support in WWII.  Gasoline bombs, mines and explosive were effective close range anti tank weapons when the target had limited vision, and manuevering space, and they were unprotected by infantry.  The Germans produced and used zimmerit because of this fear.  They stopped using it after 9 months because they believed (incorrectly) that it might catch fire under shell impacts.  The Britsh also studied it's use but did not employ it.  So there was concern about close in, non bazooka/faust, type assault against tanks.

I do not agree. Even most better panzerfausts thrown into the trenches unused. What can we say about all the small stuff like grenades
Zimmerit is really fake, someone decided to make some money. It could not prevent mine to magnet to tank armor.

Part of the reason they don't exist today is that man portable infantry anti-armor weapons are available that are much much superior.  RPGs, AT missles etc are abundant now.  But one form that is akin to these close in assault weapons is the IED.  This is used very effectively against armored vehicles in constricted areas or routes.

Yes, but this AT weapons is not a hand thrown grenades.

I don't have tank loss statistics at hand but I would think you are right about numbers.  It stands to reason that most tanks were lost to other tanks and AT guns and that very few were by direct assault.    Perhaps part of the reason for these statistics are not due to the efficacy of the weapon entirely, but to the avoidance of these situations by tank crews.  It's easier to avoid areas conducive to infantry ambush than it is to avoid an AT Gun.

Yes here agree . Now (in august patch) tanks will try not to drive up to the trenches (if they see there enemies) and they do not push by the order.

[Dane49]

I agree that mobile tanks are difficult to assault with infantry since the AT weapons would have to be thrown instead of placed on the target,especially with the types of AT weapons available to the infantry at this time not being very effective in terms of being able to kill a tank.

But,I also think that immobilised tanks in villages or woods with out infantry to help defend them,would be easier to kill since it would be easier to place mines on the most vulnerable part of the tank.

[Dane49]

Yes here agree . Now (in august patch) tanks will try not to drive up to the trenches (if they see there enemies) and they do not push by the order.

 

 

[Tanker]

Yes here agree . Now (in august patch) tanks will try not to drive up to the trenches (if they see there enemies) and they do not push by the order.

Yay, we reached one point of agreement.  

How is that change working out as you play?

It also seems that tanks spot infantry too easily in houses and trenches.  In game are tank commanders vulnerable when they have their heads out of the hatch?  Is the tank's spotting restricted when it is buttoned up?

[Tac Error]

Richard N. Armstrong translated some statistics from Radzievsky's Tankovyi udar on another forum some time ago:

During the Lvov-Sandomir Operation the 3rd Guards Tank Army tank and SP guns casualties/losses in percentage were:
80% result of arty fire
6% from mines
14% from aviation

4th Tank Army:
91.8% arty fire
3% from mines
3.4% from aviation
1.8% other

For the 1st Guards Tank Army during the Vistula-Oder Operation it was:
63.1% from arty fire
5.3% from mines
10.5% from aviation
20% from Panzerfaust RL
1.1% other

[Tanker]

Thanks for the stats.

I wonder if ATGs were lumped into the artillery stats?  Just intuitively it's seems unlikely that field artillery and howitzers could take out that percentage of tanks.  A direct hit on top by a 105mm shell might very well destroy or disable a tank but a near miss probably would not.  Firing over open sights would have more effect but that would seem to be a rare occurance.

[Dane49]

The 88mm FLAK gun was considered an  AA artillery piece,but it's claim to fame seems to be more in the anti-tank role.I'm certain other indirect fire artillery pieces were also pressed into the direct fire anti-tank role and brought forward to help in stemming any break throughs.I've read many accounts of the Germans doing this quite often to buy time as they rushed traditional anti-tank units to the point or breach in the main line.

[Kyth]

The only way those stats make sense is if AT and tank guns are included as 'artillery'.
But then, shouldn't 'aviation' be split up into artillery and mines?? 

[Tanker]

I agree with you Kyth.  It only makes sense that the "artillery" grouping accounts for all barrels larger than, say, an anti-tank rifle.  The highest percentages coming from tank cannon and anti-tank guns (including AAA in an anti-tank role).

I do agree with Andrey that in the context of the game maps (open country for the most part and small villages) the assault of tanks by infantry would probably be a infrequent event.  There are times however, in the woods and when a tank stops next to a multistory structure (school in Taranovka) that attack of an isolated tank by infantry could possibly take place, but it won't with this model.  It's a minor point now perhaps and I'm not sure if I were a developer of APOS I would want to address it presently.  But if any DLC or follow on game involves any real street fighting I would think it would be important.

[andrey12345]

I agree with you Kyth.  It only makes sense that the "artillery" grouping accounts for all barrels larger than, say, an anti-tank rifle.  The highest percentages coming from tank cannon and anti-tank guns (including AAA in an anti-tank role).

In Russian/USSR weaponery, artillery i.e. guns what have a caliber larger or equal 20 mm

[Tanker]

I agree with you Kyth.  It only makes sense that the "artillery" grouping accounts for all barrels larger than, say, an anti-tank rifle.  The highest percentages coming from tank cannon and anti-tank guns (including AAA in an anti-tank role).

In Russian/USSR weaponery, artillery i.e. guns what have a caliber larger or equal 20 mm

Thanks Andrey.  That makes sense now.  To those of us in the West, artillery usually calls to mind indirect fire weapons like field guns and howitzers.

[Dane49]

Yes,I also tend to group indirect high trajectory weapons in the artillery category,and low or flat trajectory direct fire weapons in the gun category.I'm sure all these weapons could still be considered artillery though.

[Lemonade]

From my experience... In the game, if the defending infantry is not detected by the enemy vehicle until it enters the AT grenade or KS throwing range (be it tank, halftrack or whatever), is in trenches and have AT means of defence, it has about 80% probability of knocking out the incoming vehicle. Be it either by vaporizing the vehicle completely or forcing the crew to bail out, or rendering the tank not-being-combat-effective. It takes a couple of minutes in the worst possible scenario (when tank's tracks are disabled first, or the first wave of grenades/KS's misses), but it works almost every time. From my experience, it sometimes feels like the odds are too in infantry's favour when it comes to "Männer gegen Panzer" combat. That's my observation.

Place infantry in villages (but never in houses facing a large open space), behind tree lines or on reverse slopes. Place automated support weapons on spots enfilading the approaching enemy to eliminate infantry supporting the tanks. Yeah, easy to say... I know

[Tanker]

That's good to know Lemonade.  So your experience seems to support the notion that the infantry is indeed assaulting close in tanks.  I would definitely not wish to be in an isolated, immobilized tank surrounded by enemy infantry with active imaginations and the means to do something with it.

[Dane49]

I think the problem and what some of us are trying to say here is,that the Russian infantry seem to be quite capable and willing to engage in close combat with the tanks,and are very effective against APCs and opened top armored fighting vehicles during close combat,but are curious as to why the German infantry on the other hand seem very reluctant or refuse to make the same effort and are basically non effective and cannot be relied upon,used or even considered for the task of assaulting tanks.

The questions I have concerning this issue are:Was this a deliberate program feature for the game?Was this Historical?And if so,what are the reasons for the Russian infantry being more willing and effective when engaging in close combat with tanks and armored fighting vehicles and why are the German infantry so timid and ineffective in the same role?

I don't have a problem with infantry being basically ineffective against tanks,especially at this stage in the war.But,during my games I'm finding that Russian infantry are not suffering under the same effects and restrictions that the German infantry seem to be experiencing.

[Tanker]

Lemonade, I guess that your experience that you posted about was with Russian infantry?  I've only used German infantry thus far.

[Lemonade]

It comes mostly of German infantry from Fall Blau campaign and APK. I've completed all operations in APK and I'm doing APOS campaigns in order. I've finished Fall Blau with both sides and I'm nearing to the end of the first Taranovka operation (German). I'm not sure I felt a significant difference between AT capabilities of infantry of both sides, be it German or Soviet. Perhaps Soviet troops indeed have an advantage due to many KS bottles. Hard to say. From APK I remember taking out three Mark III tanks passing through a village without infantry support - all that just with a platoon of infantry hidden in huts and supported by entrenched Maxim and short barrel IG.
On the other hand, in APOS I once managed to blast a KV-1 tank with a company command squad(!) and one T-34 (with ease - to emphasize), with a pioneers squad hidden in trenches behind a thin treeline (both in German Fall Blau campagin). Both tanks (plus two T-34s - one knocked out by 5cm PaK, and one additional KV-1 - knocked out by two Marders) were supported by at least one platoon of enemy infantry.
I think the trick with fighting tanks (if you're at least 3/4 full of ammo that is) is to make them enter your AT grenade range. Hold fire until the tank is almost 1/2 of this distance for a better effect. Of course I'm talkin' obvious things here I know. But I haven't found a better means of fighting tanks with infantry weapons of last resort.
The biggest problem is to make enemy tanks go were you want. I didn't find the recipe for this yet. It's almost like a Russian roulette. Although, the route of enemy advance is much easier to predict in APOS than it was in APK. Just look at the arrows... And that's fine by me, because on this level of command I think the commander would have known this(?).

[Dane49]

I don't have a problem with mobile tanks being difficult for the Germans to destroy.My problem is that the Germans can't seem to destroy or even attack any tanks.I would expect them to at least have some success with tank destruction against immobile or dug in tanks that have no infantry to protect them.Below is an example from George Nipes book,during the battle of Jefremovka March,1943.

"When the reconnaissance patrols reported back to Stadler, they
told him that the entire Soviet eastern perimeter was studded with
machine gun positions and was reinforced by dug in tanks. Stadler
knew that a day time attack, conducted over the flat terrain east of
Jefremovka, would be very costly. Accordingly he decided to attack
the western perimeter immediately, while it was still dark. His
battalion deployed in three attack groups, each supported by two of
Krag's assault guns. Krag personally directed the positioning of the
Sturmgeschutze in order to provide the most effective supporting
fire for the infantry.
Fortunately for the German Grenadiers, a sudden, blinding snow
storm helped conceal the advance of the battalion, although the
Russian lines erupted in what Weidinger described as a 'murderous'
fire when the attack began. Due to darkness and the snow, the
Russian defensive fire was ineffective and the SS assault groups
crossed the open ground and reached the western perimeter without
heavy losses. SS Grenadiers leapt into the Russian trenches out
of the snowstorm, hurling grenades and firing MP-40 submachine
guns. The SS assault teams fought through the perimeter and battled
their way down wreckage strewn, smoke shrouded streets. At first,
the Russian infantry fought back stubbornly from strong points that
were built up around about a dozen entrenched tanks. However, the
T-34s and T-70s were immobile, possibly due to lack of fuel and
once again the SS Sturmgeschutze were able to maneuver into position
to hit them from the flank or rear. Krag's battery knocked out
several tanks and destroyed a number of anti-tank gun positions.
Russian guns and tanks began to fall silent, their crews lying
dead or wounded beside their weapons. The Soviet infantry wavered
and began to abandon their fortified houses and camouflaged
positions. The remaining T-34s were easy pickings for the SS Grenadiers
after their supporting infantry withdrew. The Germans placed
bundles of hand grenades or satchel charges on the tank hulls. The
charges exploded with thunderous roars, disabling turrets or igniting
engine compartments. Fiery explosions incinerated a number
of tanks and their unfortunate crew as well. Soviet tankers who
attempted to abandon their burning tanks were shot down.
By the first hours of daylight most of the Soviet infantry had
pulled out of Jefremovka and at 0800 hours,with a large portion of the
town in possession of the regiment. The SS Grenadiers pushed
through Jefremovka and reached a stream on the northern edge of
the town later in the morning. Inside the blasted, smoking town, the
Germans counted ten destroyed or abandoned tanks and Kumm
estimated that his troops had destroyed a regiment of Soviet infantry."

So,it's of my opinnion that the Germans should have at least the same chance as the Russians in being able to combat and destroy immobile or dug in tanks that are not supported by infantry.