German Tank Platoon organization

[gbierl]

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

 

[Itkovian]

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

 

[Agis]

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)...

 

[DM]

Although of course there is nothing to stop you using historical organisations rather than restricting yourself to the limits imposed by the game system.

 

[Agis]

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!
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...

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Yeah, it's a friend of mine that has (I think) 3 Maus and WILL use them in a game...

 

[rvrratt]

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.

 

[DM]

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.

 

[rvrratt]

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!

 

[gbierl]

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! If not I would get ready for a meal of Panzer with an 88 course dessert.

Greg

 

[gbierl]

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

 

[rvrratt]

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! If not I would get ready for a meal of Panzer with an 88 course dessert.

Greg

:lol: Damn, I tried!

 

[Agis]

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...

 

[127th Angry Angels]

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.

 

[Agis]

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:

 

[DM]

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".

 

[Alexb83]

Aircraft can be great fun in WW2 games - in BGG 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)

 

[rvrratt]

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!

 

[MongooseMatt]

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!

 

[Proteus454]

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.