German Tank Platoon organization

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
gbierl
Weasel
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:53 am
Location: Largo, Fl.

German Tank Platoon organization

Postby gbierl » Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:00 pm

Did the Germans run four tanks to the platoon or five during WWII? If so was this organization carried over to tank destroyer platoons?

Greg
** Freedom is the opportunity to exercise responsability. **
User avatar
Itkovian
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Postby Itkovian » Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:21 pm

:D

Yes

sorry couldn't resist that

German organisation changed throughout the war
From memory medium tank platoons were 5 tanks, heavy tank platoons were 4 or 5

I'll check my books when I get in

Of course after 1941 German units were rarely at full strength so you could have platoons of anything from 1-5
Vote for the Greatest Commander of All time...
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:20 pm

In WaW all armies are limited to 3 Armour choices = 3 tanks.
Most tanks are also very expensive pointwise.
So in any given 1500 - 2000 point battle you can't filed more then the mentioned 3 tanks.
Even less if you want Tigers (620 points for Tiger I, 800 points for Königstiger) or Panthers (420 points)...
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:39 pm

Although of course there is nothing to stop you using historical organisations rather than restricting yourself to the limits imposed by the game system.
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:42 am

DM wrote:Although of course there is nothing to stop you using historical organisations rather than restricting yourself to the limits imposed by the game system.
Of course! :D
The game system is just the frame.
What you and your gaming buddies are doing with it is totally up to you.
There was the topic where one guy was happy to have the Maus written up, his friend planned to use even more then one! :wink:

It goes both ways DM! :wink: :wink: :wink:

The only time you HAVE to honor the army lists are "official" tourneys...
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
Lorcan Nagle
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2404
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:46 am
Location: Ireland

Postby Lorcan Nagle » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:03 am

Yeah, it's a friend of mine that has (I think) 3 Maus and WILL use them in a game...
Image
User avatar
rvrratt
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:09 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida USA

Re: German Tank Platoon organization

Postby rvrratt » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:10 pm

gbierl wrote:Did the Germans run four tanks to the platoon or five during WWII? If so was this organization carried over to tank destroyer platoons?

Greg
Crap! Greg, in the new ruleset of WaW you can have only 1 tank to every 3 of American tanks ie myself. Chapter 5 page 23 clearly states this. Also 88's are illegal as it has effect on game balance and your opponent crying in a corner sucking on this thumb.
US Army River Rat (Amphibious Assault) Veteran
Image
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:18 pm

I've run a few games in the past based on an idea inthe Avalon Hill game "Patton's Best". Reading WW2 action reports from Normandy it soon becomes apparent that Allied troops often misidentified enemy tanks as Tigers and AT guns as 88s whereas in most cases they were less lethal PzIVs and 75s or worse (I've read somewhere that the number of Tigers reported as having eben engaed in Normany was an order of magnitude greater than the number of vehicles actually deployed). So, when the llied players first encounter a German tank or AT gun its a Tiger or 88 model that goes on the table. They got to roll for correct identification, but frequently failed to do so until the target was KO'd and they got close enough to find out what it really was. It was an interesting mechanism to use and drove the Allied players to use more realistic tactics when encountering German kit.

I used asimilar approach in a Battle of Britain air campaign once - every British fighter encountered was a Spitfire until it was correctly identified.
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
User avatar
rvrratt
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:09 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida USA

Postby rvrratt » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:26 pm

Agis wrote:In WaW all armies are limited to 3 Armour choices = 3 tanks.
Most tanks are also very expensive pointwise.
So in any given 1500 - 2000 point battle you can't filed more then the mentioned 3 tanks.
Even less if you want Tigers (620 points for Tiger I, 800 points for Königstiger) or Panthers (420 points)...
Why oh why did I ever agree to let Greg play the Germans? I should of taken the blue pill!
US Army River Rat (Amphibious Assault) Veteran
Image
gbierl
Weasel
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:53 am
Location: Largo, Fl.

Re: German Tank Platoon organization

Postby gbierl » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:36 pm

rvrratt wrote:
gbierl wrote:Did the Germans run four tanks to the platoon or five during WWII? If so was this organization carried over to tank destroyer platoons?

Greg
Crap! Greg, in the new ruleset of WaW you can have only 1 tank to every 3 of American tanks ie myself. Chapter 5 page 23 clearly states this. Also 88's are illegal as it has effect on game balance and your opponent crying in a corner sucking on this thumb.
If that is true Will you might actually win one or two games! :D If not I would get ready for a meal of Panzer with an 88 course dessert.

Greg
** Freedom is the opportunity to exercise responsability. **
gbierl
Weasel
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:53 am
Location: Largo, Fl.

Postby gbierl » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:38 pm

DM wrote:I've run a few games in the past based on an idea inthe Avalon Hill game "Patton's Best". Reading WW2 action reports from Normandy it soon becomes apparent that Allied troops often misidentified enemy tanks as Tigers and AT guns as 88s whereas in most cases they were less lethal PzIVs and 75s or worse (I've read somewhere that the number of Tigers reported as having eben engaed in Normany was an order of magnitude greater than the number of vehicles actually deployed). So, when the llied players first encounter a German tank or AT gun its a Tiger or 88 model that goes on the table. They got to roll for correct identification, but frequently failed to do so until the target was KO'd and they got close enough to find out what it really was. It was an interesting mechanism to use and drove the Allied players to use more realistic tactics when encountering German kit.

I used asimilar approach in a Battle of Britain air campaign once - every British fighter encountered was a Spitfire until it was correctly identified.
That actually sounds like a very good system. It would add a fantastic "fog of war" effect to the game. I'll have to talk to my group about implimenting something like this.

Greg
** Freedom is the opportunity to exercise responsability. **
User avatar
rvrratt
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:09 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida USA

Re: German Tank Platoon organization

Postby rvrratt » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:40 pm

gbierl wrote:
rvrratt wrote:
gbierl wrote:Did the Germans run four tanks to the platoon or five during WWII? If so was this organization carried over to tank destroyer platoons?

Greg
Crap! Greg, in the new ruleset of WaW you can have only 1 tank to every 3 of American tanks ie myself. Chapter 5 page 23 clearly states this. Also 88's are illegal as it has effect on game balance and your opponent crying in a corner sucking on this thumb.
If that is true Will you might actually win one or two games! :D If not I would get ready for a meal of Panzer with an 88 course dessert.

Greg
:lol: Damn, I tried!
US Army River Rat (Amphibious Assault) Veteran
Image
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:28 pm

gbierl wrote:
DM wrote:I've run a few games in the past based on an idea inthe Avalon Hill game "Patton's Best". Reading WW2 action reports from Normandy it soon becomes apparent that Allied troops often misidentified enemy tanks as Tigers and AT guns as 88s whereas in most cases they were less lethal PzIVs and 75s or worse (I've read somewhere that the number of Tigers reported as having eben engaed in Normany was an order of magnitude greater than the number of vehicles actually deployed). So, when the llied players first encounter a German tank or AT gun its a Tiger or 88 model that goes on the table. They got to roll for correct identification, but frequently failed to do so until the target was KO'd and they got close enough to find out what it really was. It was an interesting mechanism to use and drove the Allied players to use more realistic tactics when encountering German kit.

I used asimilar approach in a Battle of Britain air campaign once - every British fighter encountered was a Spitfire until it was correctly identified.
That actually sounds like a very good system. It would add a fantastic "fog of war" effect to the game. I'll have to talk to my group about implimenting something like this.
Greg
Yeah, the famous Tiger-Phobia of allied troops... :D
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
User avatar
127th Angry Angels
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Southampton UK

Postby 127th Angry Angels » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:00 pm

gbierl wrote:
DM wrote:I've run a few games in the past based on an idea inthe Avalon Hill game "Patton's Best". Reading WW2 action reports from Normandy it soon becomes apparent that Allied troops often misidentified enemy tanks as Tigers and AT guns as 88s whereas in most cases they were less lethal PzIVs and 75s or worse (I've read somewhere that the number of Tigers reported as having eben engaed in Normany was an order of magnitude greater than the number of vehicles actually deployed). So, when the llied players first encounter a German tank or AT gun its a Tiger or 88 model that goes on the table. They got to roll for correct identification, but frequently failed to do so until the target was KO'd and they got close enough to find out what it really was. It was an interesting mechanism to use and drove the Allied players to use more realistic tactics when encountering German kit.

I used asimilar approach in a Battle of Britain air campaign once - every British fighter encountered was a Spitfire until it was correctly identified.
That actually sounds like a very good system. It would add a fantastic "fog of war" effect to the game. I'll have to talk to my group about implimenting something like this.

Greg
This is really well modelled in the Rules Of Engagement rule set by Great Escape games. Armies have national traits that model the mis-interpretation. It's my fav WW2 rule set and despite awful cover artteh book is awesome complete with a good selection of historic photos. Can't recommend it highly enough.
Check out Diamortis for your melodic death metal needs :)

http://www.myspace.com/diamortis
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:08 pm

I like RoE too. It is a bit more complicated as WaW but still a very nice game!
The downside of RoE is IMO the lack of vehicles (or very little vehicles) and no aircraft.

To push a couple of tanks, some infantry and a plane over the table in an afternoon, nothing beats WaW! :wink:
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:32 pm

To be honest the lack of aircraft is only an issue if you want to follow the "Hollywood" view of WW2. In fact the effectiveness of CAS (and indeed its presence on the battlefield) was extremely limited, and tactical air made its presence felt far more in the rear echelons of the enemy. We all love to swamp the table with a flight of Mustangs or Typhoons (me as much as anybody - I have happy memories of blitzing a friends Panzers with some well timed Typhoon strikes in a big game a few years ago) but unfortunately the reality was a lot more mundane. RoE is probably much closer to "how it really was".
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
User avatar
Alexb83
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Devizes, UK

Postby Alexb83 » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:45 pm

Aircraft can be great fun in WW2 games - in BG:PG rules, they're very expensive (as dedicated assets - you also need a forward air controller to make use of them to best effect) but incredibly effective. See tiger tank? Hit tiger tank with rockets and bombs, and you're laughing.

But rather than purchasing them as single use weapons - you can go for an air superiority model, roll at the beginning of the game (with modifiers for army/year) and take your chances with who'll be flying on and bombing the crud out of each other.

Very tough to counter for most armies though - as AA is pretty useless for anything else (except 88s)
Cats! I'm being nibbled to death by cats.

My Photobucket: http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/Alexb83/
User avatar
rvrratt
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:09 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida USA

Postby rvrratt » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:52 pm

DM wrote:To be honest the lack of aircraft is only an issue if you want to follow the "Hollywood" view of WW2. In fact the effectiveness of CAS (and indeed its presence on the battlefield) was extremely limited, and tactical air made its presence felt far more in the rear echelons of the enemy. We all love to swamp the table with a flight of Mustangs or Typhoons (me as much as anybody - I have happy memories of blitzing a friends Panzers with some well timed Typhoon strikes in a big game a few years ago) but unfortunately the reality was a lot more mundane. RoE is probably much closer to "how it really was".
I agree. Battlefield Evolution shines with the infantry. Too many "toys" ie tanks and aircraft can make for a boring game and not to realistic either. Infantry heavy games make for more of a chess match, realism, and for more tactics. Too many tanks and aircraft can turn into a game of whom has the biggest gun. I see this theory in WaW too. Don't get me wrong, I love to have all the cool "toys" however when the dice start rolling, give me infantry!
US Army River Rat (Amphibious Assault) Veteran
Image
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14898
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby MongooseMatt » Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:30 pm

rvrratt wrote: I agree. Battlefield Evolution shines with the infantry. Too many "toys" ie tanks and aircraft can make for a boring game and not to realistic either. Infantry heavy games make for more of a chess match, realism, and for more tactics. Too many tanks and aircraft can turn into a game of whom has the biggest gun. I see this theory in WaW too. Don't get me wrong, I love to have all the cool "toys" however when the dice start rolling, give me infantry!
Infantry heavy games certainly have an appeal all of their own. One change you will see in Modern Combat later this year is that tanks are a tad more susceptible to AT weaponry - there is no way you'll send your Abrams or Challenger across the table into dense terrain if there is a chance that infantry are lying in wait with a Javelin or MBT LAW.

We have made sure infantry remain dominant by all sorts of measures (limitations on what support can be taken, better AT weaponry, and so on), and a balanced army will go with, perhaps, a full infantry platoon, one tank and a couple of Support Assets. Of course, being a prop head myself, I can never resist squeezing in an aircraft of some sort, which is why I rarely have a balanced force in small games, and regularly pay the price!

Still, I'm building up my own Russian WWII army at the moment and, aside from the odd T-34, I am intending to have a serious wave of humanity. Nearly a hundred infantry painted up last Sunday, and more to follow!
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
Proteus454
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby Proteus454 » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:15 pm

I've never had a problem with facing - or running - a lot of tanks if the rules don't make it a rollover. An inability to react or terrible vulnerability in close assault are two measures that come to mind in preventing tanks from dominating unduly.

To be honest, if what Matthew says is true, I'd quite relish the challenge of winkling out a platoon or two of infantry with a mildly-supported Armoured force.
I'm here to kick bubblegum and chew...wait, no, that's not it.

Contrary to popular belief, War is often the answer.
For example, "What does 'W', 'A', and 'R', spell?" Or, "Was the Vietnam conflict more like a war or a 3-ring circus?"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests