Firing to tanks side/rear

[cordas]

Afterall at the moment it horrible playing the ETFT or USMC and loosing your tank and having to forfeit the game as the enemy PLA has kept its infantry hidden so is miles from its break point.

No offense, but if you lose your Challenger II against PLA's tanks that easily you are probably doing something wrong.

Well it wasn't a Challenger as I was borrowing a mates USMC so it was an Abrahms, and it was against 2 x Type 99, and there ain't much you do about getting hit by a kill shot, and if either of tanks where imune to the type 99 then it wouldn't be much fun playing the PLA.

Also that doesn't change the fact that in the real world infantry have always and probably will always be able to take out tanks, if they can climb on top of them (assault them).

 

[Turtle]

There is a bit of a problem with the basic rules where tanks tend to dominate the game. But they do that in real life in small engagements anyway. The later releases should help this by not only providing other units to eat points, but more anti tank capable units and unit attachments. From what I hear there'll be smaller booster packs that include things such as AT attachments for USMC squads, and snipers for SSTE. I figure they had to wait to say anything about these packs until they saw how well BFE would sell.

The challenger 2 is impossible to one shot kill while it's in cover. Meanwhile, the Chally 2's gun can still insta kill a type 99 while it's in cover. However, if the enemy has two type 99s, it's certainly possible that one will keep the Chally occupied while the other sneaks around to shoot it from out of cover.

I'm actually hoping that they give the PLA an advanced tank that is at least a match for the m1a2, I'm a little tired of my type 99s going up in flames.

But then again, we might see more detailed tank damage rules in the advanced rules, and perhaps some new anti tank actions that can be done by infantry.

 

[Paladin]

Afterall at the moment it horrible playing the ETFT or USMC and loosing your tank and having to forfeit the game as the enemy PLA has kept its infantry hidden so is miles from its break point.

No offense, but if you lose your Challenger II against PLA's tanks that easily you are probably doing something wrong.

Well it wasn't a Challenger as I was borrowing a mates USMC so it was an Abrahms, and it was against 2 x Type 99, and there ain't much you do about getting hit by a kill shot, and if either of tanks where imune to the type 99 then it wouldn't be much fun playing the PLA.

In cover the Abrams has a Kill of 14+. The Type-99 maxes at 13. That makes its immune to insta-death from the front. You're stuck flanking or wearing it down.

Also that doesn't change the fact that in the real world infantry have always and probably will always be able to take out tanks, if they can climb on top of them (assault them).

In a desperate/insurgent situation some of your tactics work. The Fedayeen have the IED explosives to reflect said tactics. In standard warfare you retreat or call for support. Unless you are cutoff and have time to prepare for an armored assault there isn't much standard issue Joes are going to do against tanks that doesn't expose them to SERIOUS threats of death.

In the name of game balance and creativity in force building I'd prefer to leave things alone.

 

[cordas]

In cover the Abrams has a Kill of 14+. The Type-99 maxes at 13. That makes its immune to insta-death from the front. You're stuck flanking or wearing it down.

Well its lovely to be able to keep your tank in permant cover in theory, but in reality its not always possible.

In a desperate/insurgent situation some of your tactics work. The Fedayeen have the IED explosives to reflect said tactics. In standard warfare you retreat or call for support. Unless you are cutoff and have time to prepare for an armored assault there isn't much standard issue Joes are going to do against tanks that doesn't expose them to SERIOUS threats of death.

In the name of game balance and creativity in force building I'd prefer to leave things alone.

Who ever said anything about making easy for infantry to kill tanks. I suggested 2 different options 1 making the team take a ready action 1st, which would mean the team would have to take an action within the tanks reaction range, or that the tank gets to react before the infantry launches its attack. Either way the infantry are going to be in some serious trouble before they make their attack and may well NOT make it. (personally I prefer the 2nd option).

I agree that this would never be the prefered option to dealing with tanks, but when the devil calls..... giving the infantry a d10 + d6, means that they can spectaculary kill a tank, as in get into the turrent and rip the crew out and rip them to peices with footage to show on youtube, or it means they can fail miserably (far more likely) and will generaly take very heavy casualties for it.

Historicaly infantry have done this as long as tanks have been on the battlefeild (well maybe a few days less) and don't see why it should change. You could add in specail tank killing infantry weapons such as molotov cocktails used by "insurgents" in Iraq, or things like sticky bombs used by the Brits in WW2, that add more punch to infantry assaulting tanks.

I really don't think this would do anything to change the balance or the feel of the game, but would just bring home some of the more daring heroic (stupidly suicidal) nature of combat. I fail to see the difference between a squadie jumping on a grenade to save his mates or assaulting a tank to do the same. All it would do is allow for a last ditch desperate effort to try and save the battle.

 

[tneva82]

You could add in specail tank killing infantry weapons such as molotov cocktails

Or just give them AT weapon like ATGM missile or RPG and modify rules for hitting flank/rear armour as I have proposed?-)

Front armour of challenger can soak up ATGM missile pretty well. Side armour and it can get busted(recently my armoured assault failed up specifically for that. ATGM's on three sides. My pair of challengers were lynched...)

 

[cordas]

You could add in specail tank killing infantry weapons such as molotov cocktails

Or just give them AT weapon like ATGM missile or RPG and modify rules for hitting flank/rear armour as I have proposed?-)

I do like the ideas on modifying how armour works. However thats not my point (and the USMC and Brits don't at the moment get ATGM or RPG, and even if they did its still a different arguement), my point is thats its possible for someone (anyone) if desperate enough and lucky enough to destroy one of these behmoths by assaulting it. One infantry start to climb on top of a tank its in serious trouble.

 

[Locutus9956]

Im waiting on the advanced rules before I worry too much about tank invunerability. Im hoping therell be rules for infantry getting a bonus to close combat attacks vs tanks or something to repreent them asaulting it (opening the hatch and dropping grenades in and so on.

 

[Helstrom]

You guys do realize that most tank hatches can be locked from the inside?

 

[Paladin]

You guys do realize that most tank hatches can be locked from the inside?

ROFL!

I have a feeling some folks have probably been playing PS2 or XBOX too long or have watched too many Hollywood level war movies.

 

[Hiromoon]

Unless those tanks are Russian, which come with 'Insert Grenade' ports next to the hatch. It's for the Political Officers.

If anyone's seen the latest Mercenaries 2 trailer....

 

[Locutus9956]

Yes yes I know you can lock hatches, but thats not always to say they ARE locked and theres still a multitude of unlpeasent things infantry can do to a tank on its own

 

[GJD]

A lot of the additional protection on front shots comes from the slope of the armour. Sloping an armour plate increases the effective thickness. If you look at the Challenger and the Abrahams in profile, they both have very pronounced slopes to the front armor and the turret armour. If you look at them head on you see that the sides are not sloped, so loose a lot of the additional protection. A 45 degree slope makes the effective armour about 40% again as thick, a 60 degree slope doubles armour protection.

G.

 

[Hiromoon]

Just be glad we don't have rules for this:

 

[Mr Evil]

what is that ?

 

[127th Angry Angels]

Tis a computer game called Mercenanries 2 (i don't remeber any green in the first one). It's like GTA but with tanks, helicopters and airstrikes....it's alot of fun 8)

 

[cordas]

Tis a computer game called Mercenanries 2 (i don't remeber any green in the first one). It's like GTA but with tanks, helicopters and airstrikes....it's alot of fun 8)

Hmmm sounds like fun.... but we really need rules for assaulting tanks if you have any chance of nicking them off your opponent and turing them against him *LOL*

 

[tneva82]

So: Consensus seems to be: Nothing wrong with side/rear armour shooting but ability for infantry without AT weapons to hurt tanks is wanted.

Guess I'm just different :lol:. I don't think infantry assaulting tanks without specialised AT weapons should get benefits but have problem with the side/rear armour shooting being too ineffective.

Been interesting thread nevertheless.

 

[cordas]

Guess I'm just different :lol:. I don't think infantry assaulting tanks without specialised AT weapons should get benefits but have problem with the side/rear armour shooting being too ineffective.

Been interesting thread nevertheless.

I could see an arguement being made to change the kill score for side / rear shots, and whislt I think infantry should be able to tackle a tank in assault it should be near suicidal with only a slim chance of being victorius.

 

[emperorpenguin]

infantry with no anti-armour weapons can only really disable a tank in cqb in built up areas.
I'd rather see side/rear/top vulnerability and more anti-tank troops

 

[Hiromoon]

I say we need more of this!