- Posts: 877
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
- Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
In reality that’s true.Seret wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:37 pmMaybe, but remember the main advantage of carriers is that they were organic to the infantry battalion. An infantry commander would always have carriers available, you're only going to get Mk VIs if the unit has actual tank support attached. So if you're playing a scenario you're always going to have carriers, but you might not have Mk VIs available.
But the 1940 Handbook makes Armour a support option that’s always available and for 1940 that seems fair enough.
Yep,.. and sometimes a Tank is a better support option.Their mission is quite different too. The carriers aren't tanks, they're mounted infantry. They could fight mounted if speed was necessary or opposition was light, but their default way of fighting was to dismount and fight on foot. If you think of it as a tank and compare it to tanks it's probably going to come off looking a bit lame. Actually it's an infantry team that happens to have an armoured ride.
As a rule I like to take infantry support over armour (more resilient) but if I need mobility the carriers are pretty useful
I AM MY BROTHER'S KEEPER
I choose Bren Carriers every time if they are available in teh scenario/campaign. They are just so much fun and look great.
Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts.