Close combat & tanks

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Archdukek
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Linlithgow, West Lothian, UK

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by Archdukek »

Gavin,
There's no rule against you creating a scenario which allows your guys to have some of the weapons in Table 7 so that you can try them out, so long as you tell your opponent in advance and maybe let him pick something unusual to compensate. You don't always have to play straight pick up games.

If you don't fancy the kind of game Jim described, and I can understand why you might not, I would also be inclined to make it a matter of standard practice and good gaming behaviour to tell your opponent in advance if you are using armour. Don't need to say what, just so they can take it into account. (Put it down as pre-battle briefing from the Old Man reveals the possible presence of enemy armour.)

That way you both get an enjoyable game which is the object of the exercise after all.
John

COM 2D
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by COM 2D »

If an opponent was playing an American force and wanted to take the Table 7 weapons, I'd have no problem letting them buy them as List 1 items in the same manner as the British.

GavinP
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:21 pm
Location: Stamford, Lincolnshire
Contact:

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by GavinP »

Oh I agree absolutely that there are easy solutions to this problem. Since I only play with the same couple of guys anyway then it's not a big issue of "List surprise" or gamesmanship in selecting forces (I do both sides anyway as they're my figures), it's more a case of whether there's an official ruling on this for those who aren't in my position.

I think in the absence of any reply from Rich, what I'll do is assume that each US Para fire team has enough AT weapons from list 7 to fire one a phase. If they use more than 1 in a phase, or in two consecutive phases, then they've run out - similar to the grenade ruling?

Polkovnik
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:08 pm

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by Polkovnik »

Archdukek wrote: I would also be inclined to make it a matter of standard practice and good gaming behaviour to tell your opponent in advance if you are using armour. Don't need to say what, just so they can take it into account. (Put it down as pre-battle briefing from the Old Man reveals the possible presence of enemy armour.)
John
I would say if you know the level of support they have, then you know whether they could potentially have armour, so you must make sure you are prepared for it. But I don't think you should have to tell them that you have chosen to spend those points on armour.

jafo
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:10 am

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by jafo »

As a semi-relevant aside, the IABSM summer special scenario for Pegasus Bridge from a few years ago has each British para squad having 4 gammon bombs each.

When Richard/Someone gets to the Mid/Late war lists and does the unit specific support lists, I'd imagine gammon bombs and hawkins mines'll available at higher levels for units like airborne than the generic list's maximum of two 'sticky bombs or similar'.

If I knew my opponent had rolled well enough to get up into the "I can buy metal things with weapons" section of the support table, I'd definitely be blowing my points on sticky bombs and extra bazooka teams.

Knowing how many points the other guy has for supports seems fair, even if you have to guess what he spent them on.

Richard
Site Admin
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:50 am

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by Richard »

Infantry cannot assault AFVs in Chain of Command. They can chuck grenades into open topped vehicles, and that can include a tank with an open hatch if relevant. What infantry can do is attempt to drive off AFVs with their LMGs fired against vision ports and similar.

More importantly, if you are an infantryman facing an enemy with armour support but you have no AT weapons, the standard drill is to kill the supporting infantry so that the armour buggers off. This is precisely the way that Chain of Command is set up. If you shoot the enemy's infantry whilst avoiding his armour then you can break his force morale and his force, including the armour, will withdraw.

A wargaming pal of mine is a retired General. He refers to it as taking the low-hanging fruit first.

Rich

MatthewH
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by MatthewH »

Richard wrote:if you are an infantryman facing an enemy with armour support but you have no AT weapons, the standard drill is to kill the supporting infantry so that the armour buggers off. This is precisely the way that Chain of Command is set up.
Rich
But why, in the real world, would the armour bugger off if it couldn't be harmed?

My understanding was that infantry and armour mutally supported each other - the armour dealing with other armour and things than needed a big gun, and the infantry protecting the armour from enemy infantry stuffing grenades into cracks and crevices on the tanks (air vents and engine exhausts for example). If a tank's supporting infantry were shot up it would bugger off because it was now vulnerable to being overrun by enemy infantry.

The system as it stands does not make the tank vulnerable at all to non-AP armed infantry. Hunting down the supportng infantry - who have every incentive to hunker down in a defencive posture, not offering any meaningful support to thier tank - whilst an invulnerable tank is on the loose is easier said than done.

I would suggest that tanks are always regarded as having a "very small aperture" available (rule 9.2, page 40) for a grenade attack. As another poster has noted, infantry would have to be very close indeed to mount a successful attack, and would be highly vulnerable to the tanks supporting infantry on overwatch, performing thier correct role, to say nothing of the tanks own MGs.

COM 2D
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by COM 2D »

MatthewH wrote:
But why, in the real world, would the armour bugger off if it couldn't be harmed?
But how, in the real world, would the armour know it couldn't be harmed? :?

MatthewH
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by MatthewH »

Exactly my point, armour COULD be harmed by infantry under the right curcumstances - that is unsupported by infantry and fighting againgst infantry - and the armour knew it, so it retired.

JimLeCat
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:57 pm
Location: Durham, England

Re: Close combat & tanks

Post by JimLeCat »

So there's no need to change the rules at all then, is there?

Infantry with the appropriate weapons can hurt tanks.

Tankers know that and will retire if they lose their supporting infantry, regardless as to whether those infantry have such weapons.

Cheers,
Jim

Post Reply