Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

[QT3.14159]

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.

So what you're saying is that every western military that has used suppressive fire since WW1 as a concept and something to achieve in infantry tactics (winning the fire fight) is a waste of time as infantry can just be trained to ignore bullets cracking past their heads?

Another person who can't help but put words in my mouth.

No I'm not saying they ignore them, I'm saying that they are taught to hit their target whilst being shot at; compensate for the effects of combat. Why else use weapons like the LAW or RPG if your troops aren't going to be able to shoot them whilst in a firefight or hit their targets consistently enough for them to be deemed effective.

[Quinte]

LAWs are not dedicated AT weapons. If you want your infantry to be able to deal more or less reliably with tanks, give them dedicated AT assets: either ATGMs, or any kind of adequate support.

[Sevatar]

??? LAW = Light Anti-Tank Weapon
So for what else is this? Cooking my MRE?

[Spawnfärkäl]

Sorry for disturbing your discussion, but could someone get me a short update? Because i experienced a heavy tank (without any support) clearing out a forest with lots of infantry too... and maybe i am still too much into EE and expect the infantry to get that done ... i just want to know, if that is working like that right now?

Thanks for an answer

[Sevatar]

Yes sadly ist working like that atm, you will need elite infantry like VDV, Royal Marines and such to stop the tank(s).

[Bastables]

Another person who can't help but put words in my mouth.

No I'm not saying they ignore them, I'm saying that they are taught to hit their target whilst being shot at; compensate for the effects of combat. Why else use weapons like the LAW or RPG if your troops aren't going to be able to shoot them whilst in a firefight or hit their targets consistently enough for them to be deemed effective.

I have been on various ranges in Singapore, NZ and Australia firing a rifle, a 203, a M72 and even Carl Gustav, never in any of my training during the 90s and 00s was some one else was shooting at my head.

I have been on pre deployment awq (army weapons qualifications) where every one scored the required 80% hits on various figs and exposures from 300m down to 50m.

Several months later during a contact the section fired just over 200 rds including a 50 belt from the c-9 and hit the two chaps 5 times across a gully at about 260m.

Allow me with great certainty state: You do not know what you are talking about.

[Quinte]

??? LAW = Light Anti-Tank Weapon
So for what else is this? Cooking my MRE?

Engaging lightly to medium armored vehicles and buildings/entrenched positions. The AT4, for instance, was never designed to engage MBTs, and would only be effective with side/rear shots.

Although it could be used as a last ditch attempt to destroy an MBT, well, if the said MBT is that close, something has gone wrong.

[Sevatar]

As a normal grunt you always shoot from the flank, rear or above at MBTs.

a) Front armor way to thick and the shot could glance on sloped armor
b) Tank Crew has more Observation possibilities in the front area
c) Target is bigger from the side than from the front -> easier to hit

Every soldier is a tank hunter, you dont really belive in times of highly mechanized armys like in the cold war the normal grunt had no weapon to destroy/damage tanks................

[QT3.14159]

Another person who can't help but put words in my mouth.

No I'm not saying they ignore them, I'm saying that they are taught to hit their target whilst being shot at; compensate for the effects of combat. Why else use weapons like the LAW or RPG if your troops aren't going to be able to shoot them whilst in a firefight or hit their targets consistently enough for them to be deemed effective.

I have been on various ranges in Singapore, NZ and Australia firing a rifle, a 203, a M72 and even Carl Gustav, never in any of my training during the 90s and 00s was some one else was shooting at my head.

I have been on pre deployment awq (army weapons qualifications) where every one scored the required 80% hits on various figs and exposures from 300m down to 50m.

Several months later during a contact the section fired just over 200 rds including a 50 belt from the c-9 and hit the two chaps 5 times across a gully at about 260m.

Allow me with great certainty state: You do not know what you are talking about.

I never said that they were shot at. Really does everyone who challenges me not understand that it is dishonest to put words in your opponents mouth whilst in a debate.

I said "I'm saying that they are taught to hit their target whilst being shot at" That doesn't require live fire simulations. That requires discipline training. Otherwise what reason would there be for LAWs and RPGs I've already been shown and understand the accuracy of these weapons, the first shoot usually misses so that would imply that the second shoot is likely taken within a fire fight situation, therefore soldiers would be trained to fire these during firefights. Now this may not be correct and I'd be happy to change my view if you can enlighten me on this.

[Bryan]

People expect too much from LAWs....
The new 'Matador' LAW Singaporean troops train with are taught to hit from the rears or turret ring, side shots aim for the tracks because it cant penetrate the tank even in the side armour. If a new LAW cant penetrate the side armour of tanks then what do you expect a 1980s LAW to do? I honestly expect it to ping off a tank.
LAWs are usually for killing IFVs, light armour and fortifications. You want to kill a tank? Call in CAS, another tank or ATGMs.