| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 2
|
|
|
Post subject: tank giving cover?
|
 |
|
Good evening everyone. I've been watching this forum for a lot of time as the best reference for AAM and WaS but never took the time to subscribe. I guess now is a good time since I have a question! 
My friend and I got into an argument about how accurate would it be to let tank give cover. One of us think that it was a common tactic for soldiers during WW2 to use tank as cover while advancing on the battlefield and the other think that no, in fact it was only used by rookie as it was attracting fire, any veteran soldiers would stay clear of the tanks.
So here I am asking all of you, which one is right, and if there could be reference to back it up it would be nice...
-Was it a common tactic for soldiers to use tank as cover?
-If yes, was it used by every country or just a few?
-Would it be historical to let tank give cover to infantry in AAM?
Thanks for your answers! And it's a very good community you have here! |
|
 Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:39 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Probably, you're looking at a situation where a tank isn't your first choice for cover, but it beats a blank.
Infantry would most likely use a tank as cover on its way to somewhere else or if moving in the open. A stationary tank is going to draw a lot of fire, though.
I think you would find a tank used more often by inexperienced infantry than veterans.
_________________
 |
|
| Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:47 am |
|
|
Posts: 114
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Because tanks are so small in relation to the size of a hex, the rules don't allow them to be used as cover, but lots of battle reports refer to them as infantry cover. Accounts of the battle at La Fiere Bridge in Normandy mention Wehrmacht troops using French tanks as cover when they tried to assault a bridgehead.
It was also common practice for Russian troops to use tanks as cover. I think special scenario rules are the best way to deal with this situation. If a particular battle will play more realistically by letting infantry advance behind tanks, write it in, but I would limit the cover rolls to 5-6 and only for 1 infantry/soldier. Tanks are too small to give good cover across a hex.
_________________
Proud collector of "Battle Barbies" |
|
| Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:57 am |
|
|
Dr. Communazi, Ph.D
Posts: 1059
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Under small arms fire, tanks could and did provide cover. I think you'd find that infantry weren't so ready to cozy up to the belly of the beast when AT guns or enemy armor was about.
_________________
 |
|
| Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:30 pm |
|
|
"My dear general, the war can now only be won by the politicians." Von Rundstedt to Kurt Meyer.
Posts: 1488
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: tank giving cover?
|
|
|
| Red Castle wrote: | Good evening everyone. I've been watching this forum for a lot of time as the best reference for AAM and WaS but never took the time to subscribe. I guess now is a good time since I have a question!
My friend and I got into an argument about how accurate would it be to let tank give cover. One of us think that it was a common tactic for soldiers during WW2 to use tank as cover while advancing on the battlefield and the other think that no, in fact it was only used by rookie as it was attracting fire, any veteran soldiers would stay clear of the tanks.
So here I am asking all of you, which one is right, and if there could be reference to back it up it would be nice...
-Was it a common tactic for soldiers to use tank as cover?
-If yes, was it used by every country or just a few?
-Would it be historical to let tank give cover to infantry in AAM?
Thanks for your answers! And it's a very good community you have here! |
Welcome to the forumini! 
_________________
Scenarios?:
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/forum3.php. |
|
| Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:04 pm |
|
|
Posts: 2
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
thanks for the replies. Since there doesn't seems to be a clear yes or no, a compromise is on it's way.
thanks again! |
|
| Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:23 pm |
|
|
Posts: 129
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
It is true that throughout WWI, WWII and almost every other war that tanks have been used in Infantry have used them as cover. Primarily troops would use them as cover when pressing an assault when no other cover was available although I agree with an earlier statement that troops would not do so when enemy armor was present (not a good place to be!).
A good rule was mentioned earlier, 1 tank could provide cover to 1 solder with a save of 5+ but...if the unit gets infiladed it loses that cover roll! 
_________________
Victory is for those willing to take it! |
|
| Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:12 am |
|
|
Posts: 59
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
From what I was able to learn, the major factor in whether or not infantry was able to glean any cover from nearby armor was based on 2 factors.
1. Is the vehicle functional or not? If the former, the likelihood of it shagging off was too great to consider using it directly. (or so it seems from those I spoke with)
and
2. If it's not functional, is it burning or otherwise likely to explode? If not, then the vast majority much preferred this massive hulk of metal between them & the enemy over many alternatives.
And so...I have taken ALL my duplicates from the first 5 sets (the little guys) and had several different people "destroy" them, and when a vehicle is removed from the map, I put a hulk in its place because a) it would provide cover and b) if only 1 vehicle can be in a hex, a destroyed vehicle would still be there.
It provides infantry more places to hide, makes life a litte tougher on vehicles who suddenly can't use that blocked bridge or road, and those destroyed wrecks all over the map do add to the look (sort of like lights on a stereo system).
_________________
Gatling guns? We don't need no stinking gatling guns slowing us down." G. Custer, 1876 |
|
| Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:55 am |
|
|
Posts: 885
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jeffrey5665 wrote: | From what I was able to learn, the major factor in whether or not infantry was able to glean any cover from nearby armor was based on 2 factors.
1. Is the vehicle functional or not? If the former, the likelihood of it shagging off was too great to consider using it directly. (or so it seems from those I spoke with)
and
2. If it's not functional, is it burning or otherwise likely to explode? If not, then the vast majority much preferred this massive hulk of metal between them & the enemy over many alternatives.
And so...I have taken ALL my duplicates from the first 5 sets (the little guys) and had several different people "destroy" them, and when a vehicle is removed from the map, I put a hulk in its place because a) it would provide cover and b) if only 1 vehicle can be in a hex, a destroyed vehicle would still be there.
It provides infantry more places to hide, makes life a litte tougher on vehicles who suddenly can't use that blocked bridge or road, and those destroyed wrecks all over the map do add to the look (sort of like lights on a stereo system). |
Good idea! |
|
| Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:40 pm |
|
|
Posts: 97
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| We have a very similar house rule. All damaged vehicles receive a 'grey smoke counter' which can block LoS. All destroyed vehicles receive a 'red/black/orange flame counter' which can provide cover (on a successful cover roll) to adjacent infantry and also blocks LoS. We think this adds an additional strategic element making the battlfield more dynamic in our games. |
|
| Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:52 pm |
|
|
Posts: 102
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
we don't use any cover rules for infantry from tanks, but if a soldier is behind a tank, and the tank gets destroyed, does something then happen to the soldier hiding next to it? I mean if you have a transport that gets destroyed, the unit(s) inside are destroyed, so wouldn't it make sense to put a disruption on that soldier then that is hiding behind a tank that just exploded? It just make sense how you can have it one way (a soldier hiding behind a tank for cover) and not the other (that soldier being disrupted because the the tank he was hiding behind just got blown up).
_________________
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." -Gen. George S. Patton
 |
|
| Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 1606
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NoMoreHexes wrote: | | We have a very similar house rule. All damaged vehicles receive a 'grey smoke counter' which can block LoS. All destroyed vehicles receive a 'red/black/orange flame counter' which can provide cover (on a successful cover roll) to adjacent infantry and also blocks LoS. We think this adds an additional strategic element making the battlfield more dynamic in our games. |
I really like your idea, it would give the game a little more realism and make it more strategic as well  |
|
| Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:10 pm |
|
|
Posts: 59
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| rowsdower wrote: | | we don't use any cover rules for infantry from tanks, but if a soldier is behind a tank, and the tank gets destroyed, does something then happen to the soldier hiding next to it? I mean if you have a transport that gets destroyed, the unit(s) inside are destroyed, so wouldn't it make sense to put a disruption on that soldier then that is hiding behind a tank that just exploded? It just make sense how you can have it one way (a soldier hiding behind a tank for cover) and not the other (that soldier being disrupted because the the tank he was hiding behind just got blown up). |
In my games, active vehicles never provide cover for anyone because they are able to move, and the ground pounders wouldn't be able to keep up. So, this issue is never a factor, but if you want to provide cover to infantry with active vehicles, I would think they'd need to be close enough to make it a possibility to get injured by a vehicle being destroyed, but in the interests of gameplay, I'd make a roll for every soldier. On a 2, they are disrupted, on a 1, KIA....or some such as that.
_________________
Gatling guns? We don't need no stinking gatling guns slowing us down." G. Custer, 1876 |
|
| Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:05 pm |
|
|
Hellcat Commander
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 1084
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Tanks often attracted a large amount of machine gun and AT fire...which creates shrapenal. Green infantry units would stay close to tanks until they realized how dangerous it was to do so. You only have to see a couple friends get killed by ricocheting rounds before you get the hell away form the tanks.
Tanks and infantry mutually support one another to make battle successful. I doubt if tanks provided much cover as they rolled about, sometimes faster than a soldier could run.
In game, no... it just wouldnt make sense.
_________________
Custom Painted Minis: http://riversidegaming.myfastforum.org/forum52.php
 |
|
| Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:13 pm |
|
|
Rehabbing from my plasticrack addiction!
Posts: 688
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Tanks were used for cover. Not in all situations, clearly but in many situations such as urban combat. Since tanks were impervious to MG fire, troops would not be concerned about it drawing MG fire as long as the tank is between you and the offending MG. Many Allied tanks were equipped with telephones on the back deck so soldiers could communicate with the crew and coordinate fire and speed of advance etc. Tanks being faster than infantry is not a problem either, just slow down to the speed of the soldiers. In fact, "Infantry" tanks such as the Matilda and Churchill were designed to move at the pace of infantry. Bottom line, it is a viable tactic and could be implemented in the rules pretty easily. Infantry in the same hex as a tank would get a cover roll from enemy infantry fire. Infantry using a tank for cover that is hit by enemy armor or artillery, use the same rules for tanks riders (I don't exactly recall what they are).
_________________
Nuts! - General Anthony McAuliffe
 |
|
| Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:20 am |
|
|
Posts: 97
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I agree with what BuzzKill just wrote. We use the HHR house rules for the Soviet 'Tankodesantniki' troops. They have an SA of "While this unit is in a hex next to the friendly tank it gets full cover".
"The tactic was used as an expedience by the Soviet Red Army during the Second World War. Tank desant troops (tankodesantniki) were infantry, trained in the tactic in order to offer small arms support in suppression of enemy anti-tank weapons, or enemy infantry using anti-tank grenades."
This is a good means to use the speed of the T-34 and transport troops up close to the Germans and negate their long-range advantage. |
|
| Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:44 am |
|
|
Posts: 114
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NoMoreHexes wrote: | I agree with what BuzzKill just wrote. We use the HHR house rules for the Soviet 'Tankodesantniki' troops. They have an SA of "While this unit is in a hex next to the friendly tank it gets full cover".
"The tactic was used as an expedience by the Soviet Red Army during the Second World War. Tank desant troops (tankodesantniki) were infantry, trained in the tactic in order to offer small arms support in suppression of enemy anti-tank weapons, or enemy infantry using anti-tank grenades."
This is a good means to use the speed of the T-34 and transport troops up close to the Germans and negate their long-range advantage. |
Do you have an HHR card for those troops?
_________________
Proud collector of "Battle Barbies" |
|
| Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:55 am |
|
|
Posts: 97
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Yes, we use the HHR cards by Black Knight Foundry for our games. |
|
| Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:03 am |
|
|
Posts: 114
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NoMoreHexes wrote: | | Yes, we use the HHR cards by Black Knight Foundry for our games. |
Do they post their cards online? Where? I'm always interested in custom cards to fill in for missing units.
_________________
Proud collector of "Battle Barbies" |
|
| Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:07 am |
|
|
Posts: 97
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Yes, there's a sticky in the custom cards forum:
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about4833.html
My son and I recommend them. Give them a try. Add a few of the rule enhancements to your next game and see what you think. |
|
| Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:10 am |
|
|
|
