Tanks

Moderators: Vis Bellica, Laffe

Post Reply
fred
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:05 pm

Tanks

Post by fred »

Hi all

We have played a couple of late war western front scenarios with trench lines and tanks.

Generally the games have worked well, but we have a few questions around the performance of tanks within the game, as they seem not quite as useful as they should be.

We have played with both Mark V tanks (guns) and Whippets (MGs)

The Whippets have seemed more useful as faster and can move and fire - but generally only cause suppression when firing against targets in trenches.

The Mark Vs have seemed very slow, in the last game while the infantry reached the enemy trench and occupied it on one flank, and swept past it on the other, the 3 Mark Vs in the middle, all activating independently made less progress, 1 just reached the trench line, one barely left the British lines and the third was in the middle.

Progress was slow for a few reasons, movement was nearly always 6” from 2dAv so slower than infantry. Having to stop to shoot, means turns not moving. Rolling double 5s lost another turn due to a mishap.

So I’m interested in getting other peoples views? I’m certainly not expecting the tanks to be lots faster than the infantry - its not WWII - but I would expect them to be at least infantry speed, if not a touch faster.

User avatar
BaronVonWreckedoften
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:28 am

Re: Tanks

Post by BaronVonWreckedoften »

Bear in mind that the first British tanks deployed on the Western Front only moved at 2mph (when they moved at all) - so barely half a respectable walking pace - and it took a wee while for that performance to improve. Rather like WW2 Tigers, most losses, at least in the first year or so, were to mechanical failure.
No plan survives first contact with the dice.

fred
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:05 pm

Re: Tanks

Post by fred »

Thanks - I’d not retaliated / remembered that in 1916 the tanks were that slow. So the rules certainly feel fine for then.

We were in a notional 1918 scenario so not sure if they should be a bit better by then - I guess I’m thinking that the British tactic was infantry following the tanks - at the minute with the differences in speed the infantry will spend a lot of time passing, waiting for the tanks to move on.

AAR
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:00 am

Re: Tanks

Post by AAR »

Have used them for Gaza and was very happy with the rules. They were fun to use but not overbearing, the Turkish artillery caused them a lot of problems.

User avatar
BaronVonWreckedoften
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:28 am

Re: Tanks

Post by BaronVonWreckedoften »

fred wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:03 pm
We were in a notional 1918 scenario so not sure if they should be a bit better by then - I guess I’m thinking that the British tactic was infantry following the tanks - at the minute with the differences in speed the infantry will spend a lot of time passing, waiting for the tanks to move on.
Yes, they had improved a lot by then - especially in terms of mechanical reliability. I was always impressed by the fact that the British and Dominion forces were essentially using "blitzkrieg" by this point in the war: loads of artillery (including tank-mounted SP heavy guns), tanks with infantry in close support (even in personnel carrier tanks), forward re-supply from air drops, etc. All that was missing was massed radios.
No plan survives first contact with the dice.

fred
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:05 pm

Re: Tanks

Post by fred »

Might give them a couple of extra inches of movement for 1918 then, which is hardly going to make them scoot around, but will speed them up a bit.

Post Reply