Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

User avatar
Shimmler
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed 3 Jul 2013 17:35
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Shimmler » Mon 15 Jul 2013 18:47

QT3.14159 wrote:
dimabernat wrote:Ok so I been able to play the game yesterday and checked out the new "nerf" how you call it and I don't see any problem with infentry use on the counteriery. Now that unite get acc penelity it's more realistic and my tactics work even better. Currently number 5 and 8 point from 4.
Played vs a high ranked turtale yestrday diismental him with my usual. Ow if you turtale and think I will atk so you get easy points and win. Then I just atk and get double the points then you and win ;) work like a charm vs all top and low grade turtale in game.

So this hule cry baby topic is not needed game is fine about inf maybe small change to inf moral higher.


You nauseate me.

1. Infantry morale is too low.

2. Their accuracy drop off is unrelatistcally huge. If they were civilians straight off the street maybe but even a standard trooper would know how to hit a tank 9 times out of 10 at maximum distance with a LAW or RPG whilst under fire.

3. You argument is biased. You benefit from this break in gameplay. You benefit from the loss of power that infantry now have.

4. You would suck at making video games. It doesn't matter if you enjoy crushing people, what is important is that they must enjoy trying not to be crushed. Winning is always fun, but losing should be fun also, fun in the sense that it is enjoyable trying to take advantage back. At the minute infantry's loss of strength has caused that not to be the case for many people. Desperately scrabbling to try and stop a steamroller isn't fun, changing your tactics and adapting, reforming your line, taking a different position, that's fun. Right now, that rarely happens because if infantry aren't in a town they get crushed, not only is this unrealistic but it means a whole section of your army is out of action until you can defend a town again.


1. Quite a hollow argument. Several peopel already told you taht hardened and higher skill infantry still kills tanks while being panicked.

2. If they were "civilians straight off the street" they would run the hella way from the area the moment they saw a 55-tonne beast aiming their way. Cause it's not a video game with save/load feature for them.

3. Break of gameplay was a BUG that got FIXED with latest patch.

4. Inability of infantry to go prone and take cover in field is totally different topic, not relevant to the discussion at all.
Image

Gneckes
Warrant Officer
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 16:48
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Gneckes » Mon 15 Jul 2013 19:21

QT3.14159 wrote:
dimabernat wrote:Ok so I been able to play the game yesterday and checked out the new "nerf" how you call it and I don't see any problem with infentry use on the counteriery. Now that unite get acc penelity it's more realistic and my tactics work even better. Currently number 5 and 8 point from 4.
Played vs a high ranked turtale yestrday diismental him with my usual. Ow if you turtale and think I will atk so you get easy points and win. Then I just atk and get double the points then you and win ;) work like a charm vs all top and low grade turtale in game.

So this hule cry baby topic is not needed game is fine about inf maybe small change to inf moral higher.


You nauseate me.

1. Infantry morale is too low.

2. Their accuracy drop off is unrelatistcally huge. If they were civilians straight off the street maybe but even a standard trooper would know how to hit a tank 9 times out of 10 at maximum distance with a LAW or RPG whilst under fire.

3. You argument is biased. You benefit from this break in gameplay. You benefit from the loss of power that infantry now have.

4. You would suck at making video games. It doesn't matter if you enjoy crushing people, what is important is that they must enjoy trying not to be crushed. Winning is always fun, but losing should be fun also, fun in the sense that it is enjoyable trying to take advantage back. At the minute infantry's loss of strength has caused that not to be the case for many people. Desperately scrabbling to try and stop a steamroller isn't fun, changing your tactics and adapting, reforming your line, taking a different position, that's fun. Right now, that rarely happens because if infantry aren't in a town they get crushed, not only is this unrealistic but it means a whole section of your army is out of action until you can defend a town again.


1.) Opinion presented as fact.

2.)Their accuracy is halved in "Panicked" state, iirc. Not what I'd call unrealistic, or huge. Is it that way in real life? No idea, but it shouldn't matter. Gameplay >> realism every time.

3.) Why is it biased? Because he can actually play? If anything, that makes his opinion more qualified. Did you consider the possibility he's benefitting from this "break" (which was A GODDAMN BUGFIX!!) because he knows how to adapt? You apparently can't.

4.)"Desperately scrabbling to try and stop a steamroller isn't fun". More fun to me than eternal Sitzkrieg. Plus, steamrollers do, unless they're very well executed, meet horrible fates at the hands of ATGMs, Planes and Helos anyway. At least that's my experience.
" not only is this unrealistic but it means a whole section of your army is out of action until you can defend a town again": Again, you're way too attached to your realism, and to your infantry. Out of action? what? Any cover that will allow them to get close enough to fire without being spotted works just fine in my experience. If there isn't any nearby, fall back. Territory is pretty much worthless at the moment anyway.

Also, please refrain from further personal insults. Thanks.
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

QT3.14159
Corporal
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri 17 May 2013 23:41
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby QT3.14159 » Mon 15 Jul 2013 20:17

Gneckes wrote:
QT3.14159 wrote:
You nauseate me.

1. Infantry morale is too low.

2. Their accuracy drop off is unrelatistcally huge. If they were civilians straight off the street maybe but even a standard trooper would know how to hit a tank 9 times out of 10 at maximum distance with a LAW or RPG whilst under fire.

3. You argument is biased. You benefit from this break in gameplay. You benefit from the loss of power that infantry now have.

4. You would suck at making video games. It doesn't matter if you enjoy crushing people, what is important is that they must enjoy trying not to be crushed. Winning is always fun, but losing should be fun also, fun in the sense that it is enjoyable trying to take advantage back. At the minute infantry's loss of strength has caused that not to be the case for many people. Desperately scrabbling to try and stop a steamroller isn't fun, changing your tactics and adapting, reforming your line, taking a different position, that's fun. Right now, that rarely happens because if infantry aren't in a town they get crushed, not only is this unrealistic but it means a whole section of your army is out of action until you can defend a town again.


1.) Opinion presented as fact.

2.)Their accuracy is halved in "Panicked" state, iirc. Not what I'd call unrealistic, or huge. Is it that way in real life? No idea, but it shouldn't matter. Gameplay >> realism every time.

3.) Why is it biased? Because he can actually play? If anything, that makes his opinion more qualified. Did you consider the possibility he's benefitting from this "break" (which was A GODDAMN BUGFIX!!) because he knows how to adapt? You apparently can't.

4.)"Desperately scrabbling to try and stop a steamroller isn't fun". More fun to me than eternal Sitzkrieg. Plus, steamrollers do, unless they're very well executed, meet horrible fates at the hands of ATGMs, Planes and Helos anyway. At least that's my experience.
" not only is this unrealistic but it means a whole section of your army is out of action until you can defend a town again": Again, you're way too attached to your realism, and to your infantry. Out of action? what? Any cover that will allow them to get close enough to fire without being spotted works just fine in my experience. If there isn't any nearby, fall back. Territory is pretty much worthless at the moment anyway.

Also, please refrain from further personal insults. Thanks.


Yeah I'll bow out of this one. This guy really bothered me with his tone and manner and I didn't do myself any favors here. My tone was obnoxious. I still stand by my arguments. however I apologies for my manner.

You should be careful who you call on insults. Your inability to argue against me without deliberately misrepresenting me is not just insulting it is dishonest in the extreme.

User avatar
Hartmann
Lieutenant
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 18:31
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Hartmann » Mon 15 Jul 2013 20:27

2. Their accuracy drop off is unrelatistcally huge. If they were civilians straight off the street maybe but even a standard trooper would know how to hit a tank 9 times out of 10 at maximum distance with a LAW or RPG whilst under fire.


I'm not sure how 'easy' you think these RPGs are to use but you seem to have the wrong idea about their accuracy.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf

Chances of hitting first shots at 500 meters are basically non-existant. A compensated second round has a noticeably higher chance, but still is barely above 20% at this range. Both are at fully exposed, stationary targets. Presumably without taking into account the operator being under fire.

It also looks like all this document assumes there being an optical sight on the RPG7, and I don't think any RPG aside from the RPG16 is modelled with the increased accuracy of one of these.

QT3.14159
Corporal
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri 17 May 2013 23:41
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby QT3.14159 » Mon 15 Jul 2013 20:38

Hartmann wrote:
2. Their accuracy drop off is unrelatistcally huge. If they were civilians straight off the street maybe but even a standard trooper would know how to hit a tank 9 times out of 10 at maximum distance with a LAW or RPG whilst under fire.


I'm not sure how 'easy' you think these RPGs are to use but you seem to have the wrong idea about their accuracy.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf

Chances of hitting first shots at 500 meters are basically non-existant. A compensated second round has a noticeably higher chance, but still is barely above 20% at this range. Both are at fully exposed, stationary targets. Presumably without taking into account the operator being under fire.

It also looks like all this document assumes there being an optical sight on the RPG7, and I don't think any RPG aside from the RPG16 is modelled with the increased accuracy of one of these.


Hmm. Interesting. Accuracy is certainly lower than I head gathered from other sources. Not significantly but certainly larger than expected.

I'm all for changing my views on information so yeah. Accuracy would drop significantly as range increased towards its maximum.

Now how about a tank at half that distance or closer. I'm pretty sure something as large as a T80 or Abrams (basic models no extra letters/numbers) isn't going to be too hard to hit, even counting in weapons fire.

Thanks for the source though. You are the first to do so, all we've had before is opinions and assertions and dishonest strawmen so you are a breath of fresh air.

Sevatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 18:50
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Sevatar » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:24

Funny what arguments can be found here.

So conscripts all run away if they see a tank because of this standart infantry Pact/Nato with a normal Training isnt able to stop tanks in a village or a forest. So i will need crack Units like Royal Marines to stop Tanks succesfully? :lol:

Yeah does someone remind the misshappen tank attack at Warschau at 1939? The Polish army stopped the attacking German Tank Regiment in ist tracks and forced them to retreat.
OK one could argue the Panzer I isnt a real tank but hey in times where the anti tank defense restet big time on anti tank rifles and not anti tank guns i would see it as even.

Stalingrad: Yes the russian conscripts caused so much losses because every conscript with an anti tank rifle had an crack guardsmen beside him to let him shoot or throw the molotov Cocktail. :roll:

Berlin: The german army a shadow compared to former times was NOT able to destroy 1945 several hundrets of russian tanks in and around Berlin with ad hoc Units, burned out regular divisions barely in strength of a peacetime Regiment and 60 year old Volkssturm grandpas because = No crack Units. :lol:

There is a reason armored troops avoid large forest or urban Areas and if they go in they do it only with infantry protection because the best infantry killer is: TADAAAAAA infantry
Arty doesnt make it, this proved the WWI. Example: Battle at the Somme

Armored troops are for breakthroughs, counterattack them (not head on), cutting the LOCs and supply, overrunning HQs, creating encirclements and causing an overall indepth disruption on the enemy -> Blitzkrieg tactics WWII and Desert Storm are examples for that.
Yes we have in W:ALB a Meeting Engagement Situation but this doesnt mean the tank has to be the answer to everything.

I havent seen a single field Manual that teaches to let tanks work alone in forest or urban Areas.
Standart infantry is well capable of destroying tanks in their own playground and this is not represented in the game and for what is the standart infantry for if ist not able to defend itself in ist used to be enviroment?

For example 2003 in the French Army Training centre CENTAG in Mailly my platoon consisting mainly of conscripts destroyed 4 enemy Tanks (AMX 30) in less than 3 minutes with anti tank mines, anti tanks weapons and some smoke grenades in a not really dense forest. I think those who served made the same expirience. Hu but this didnt happen we should have called some crack Units. :lol:

Gneckes
Warrant Officer
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 16:48
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Gneckes » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:44

I don't see what your problem is. Even cheap infantry can kill tanks in the right circumstances (i.e. they get the first shot) though expensive/better vetted units do it better of course. And if it takes 4 of them to kill a medium tank, so what? You're still coming out ahead.

I agree that tanks shouldn't be the answer to everything, but neither should infantry, especially not the cheap stuff.
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3619
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Gopblin » Mon 15 Jul 2013 23:07

The problem is that cheap infantry loses to cheap tanks in their specific role, and is nowhere near as useful at other things.

Like, say, if most AA was unable to kill planes circling overhead and not shooting unless you spent almost the same points on AA as the cost of planes - you would call AA broken, yes? Well currently infantry is in that position, barely effective under ideal circumstances and not effective in other situations.

I far and away prefer using Harpoons as cheap forest guards these days - they aim and fire very fast, stunning most infantry and tanks very quickly, they're actually cheaper than infantry with a transport, and they're much more useful outside of sitting in a forest.

As for realism, trained infantry in dense terrain is almost impossible to dislodge with just tanks IRL.
Heck, even Moldovan police company managed to repulse an unsupported tank attack and burn like 5 T64BV in Transnistria, and it's hard to find a worse trained army than Moldovan "police" circa 1992 (to give you an idea, the tanks were reinforcing the local volunteer militia battalion - which was holding its own against an attack by Moldovan mechanized brigade despite having no armor and very little ammo).

Best wishes,
Daniel.
Last edited by Gopblin on Mon 15 Jul 2013 23:08, edited 1 time in total.
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

Sevatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 18:50
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Sevatar » Mon 15 Jul 2013 23:07

I thought ist pretty clear, standart infantry is atm mince meat and not only top Units should be able to stop tanks especially in villages. Tanks are not there for and it would be more challenging if even the "cheap" stuff is an enemy you have to respect IF it is in a good defense psoition. Guess what: you encircle it with armored troops and root it out with infantry + arty and air Support and not driving just thru them.

How hard is it to shoot from a house Corner in the flank of a mbt?

If im trained and both sides trained their infantry a lot in anti tank tactics i dont get panicked only of the noise of driving tanks.

Some arguments here border on insane. Why should only vetted or elite infantry be able to stop tanks without getting burned to ashes.
For example the Heimatschutzen reflect very good the anti tank awareness of that time with their stats and i dont preach 10 guys of those should stop a T 80 tank Company but in a good defense Position they should give the enemy something to think about, so should not only reserve infantry but especially the standart infantry.

Because of this i cant understand Arguments like: just take vetted infantry OR ist ok if you need 8! squads to kill two tanks........

User avatar
Zloba
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed 19 Jun 2013 17:33
Location: Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Zloba » Mon 15 Jul 2013 23:33

Gopblin wrote:The problem is that cheap infantry loses to cheap tanks in their specific role, and is nowhere near as useful at other things.

Like, say, if most AA was unable to kill planes circling overhead and not shooting unless you spent almost the same points on AA as the cost of planes - you would call AA broken, yes? Well currently infantry is in that position, barely effective under ideal circumstances and not effective in other situations.

I far and away prefer using Harpoons as cheap forest guards these days - they aim and fire very fast, stunning most infantry and tanks very quickly, they're actually cheaper than infantry with a transport, and they're much more useful outside of sitting in a forest.

As for realism, trained infantry in dense terrain is almost impossible to dislodge with just tanks IRL.
Heck, even Moldovan police company managed to repulse an unsupported tank attack and burn like 5 T64BV in Transnistria, and it's hard to find a worse trained army than Moldovan "police" circa 1992 (to give you an idea, the tanks were reinforcing the local volunteer militia battalion - which was holding its own against an attack by Moldovan mechanized brigade despite having no armor and very little ammo).

Best wishes,
Daniel.


This. All recent historical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that only a combined attack can clear infantry from built-up areas effectively. Even when dealing with militia-like forces.

If current mechanics were true the final battle in SPR would be over in two minutes. Two Tiger tanks and assorted self-propelled guns roll into town. Shots fired. PANIC. Roll end credits.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests