Tank riders

I was thinking, that the russians have halftracks but those were all lend lease and were never in large enough supply so I think halftracks should be more expensive for russians and they should be able to have tanks riders, tankk riders would be able to fight from the tank but would gain little extra cover and if the tanks destroyed then the infantry die with it. Is this a legit suggestion :slight_smile:

We’ve discussed it in the past. Tanks were ridden primarily away from the front lines… and most of what happens in a 1944 match is on or extremely close to the simulation front line. At the front, sitting on a tank is detrimental to personal safety… you’re on a bigger target, you stand out against the colour scheme of said target, you have limited line of sight due to the design of the tank, and you need to dismount to find cover…

True but the russians even had specialist tank rider divisions

That was a common battlefield tactic. Troops dismounted quickly when coming under fire (it doesn’t take long to jump from the tank). And riding the tank gives you cover at least from one side (soldiers generally climb on the tank’s sides, take a close look at new T-34 model and you’ll see special handles at the sides made just for that).

Tankers tried to encourage infantry to ride with them, because extra eyes meant the difference between life and death. Infantry can spot AT guns, tank traps and such. Tanks can destroy machineguns and generally cause panic among enemy. So tank riding (done properly) is beneficial to all participants.

it would be cool if infantry dismounted automatically when the tank comes under fire.

The infantry was also their to prevent enemy infantry from attaching mines, but the only major country in WW2 that did a lot this was the Russians the tank riders were Tankodeseantniki I think

Well but that is a thing every country did during the war. Russia already owns with partisans. xD

N3mesis, Last game I abused of partisans. But I am the first to recognize it is not a realistic tactic. ( see viewtopic.php?p=6434#p6434 )

I prefer to see unreal tactics out (like the free partisan spam as front line soldiers), and realistic tactic added (like tank mounted troups)

I think the next infantry update should go to germany, they are the only ones that don’t get some kind of special infantry unit, ussr has partisans, us has paratroopers, gbr has glider troops and commandos.

Germany does have nothing to put behind enemy lines. You just can try to push. I’m also not sure about the costs. But german inf does cost more or? I’m not sure about that. I always have ressource problems xD Even if i try to take flags.

maybe commandos, or paras or the waffen SS

Germany doesn’t really need specialized infantry. They’re hard as nails and cheaper than the British.

Oh, ok. I just figured the special troops were in game to allow more faction specific tactics, not just to complement the regular troops. :slight_smile:

I often feel like its the other wayround. Did you guys already tested the Squads (in same class) against each other? Anyways I’m not a good player i know xD

I think germany should get special troops, the british commandos are amazing for example, I think germay could get SS or paratroops, the SS could have sturmgewehr 44’s, and paras could have FG42’s or 43’s

Well, it is really a mix of the two. The special troops exist to differentiate in a historically accurate manner. This is why Italy has various different special squads planned, and Finland originally had multiple types of LMG.

Well, Britain rests on Infantry heavily. Germany has an edge in both Armour and Vehicles, so British Infantry are supposed to have a technical advantage in terms of efficiency. This often comes in the form of the Bren, which is a micro-intensive solution.

I was in favour of the Paratroopers, but Zveroboy/SpikedHelmet vetoed their inclusion on a historical basis.

german vehicles are poor compared to other factions and i find that a King tiger ain’t even worth a squad of partisans :smiley: , my opponent sent two king tigers to attack me and I attacked them from behind with a partisan squad, before they turned their turrets to face the threat they were dead, Panthers are pretty easy to kill too even with a cromwell, as long as you manage to flank them. I wish there were comets included, to give the british some armored punch, plus I think its unrealistic how a IS-2 and ISU-152 have worse AP qualities then a panther

I’ve always found the Light Halftrack and Marder to give me a distinct edge in play. As for Tanks, I get heavier equipment than the US or GBR, and with micro I have an edge on Russia.

But a fact is that if you play Germans you can only push your front… if possible… while the enemy can ambush you from behind or attacking the base while the player tries hardly to get inf at the front so the base is defenseless cuz I as player must try to balance the front with inf,mg42 and tanks… which arent cheap. then i must hope that the enemy dont use arty to break my lines. So with other words… while i try to build up a defense wall or a producing units to attack they can ambush me and in the end they can overrun my units with inf,tank spamming. Because I have no chance to disturb the enemys factory except with arty which costs money as well. before i have my first panthers available the enemy already does have much more tanks and maybe arty…plus masses of INF. if not partisans which do have a good limit now.

Actually, that’s right on the mark - the IS-2 and ISU-152 had big guns, but they were middling-velocity weapons (AP shot on the ISU-152 was essentially useless; it was an inaccurate gun and even a direct hit would probably do less damage than a HE round). German reports from the field estimated that the Panther’s frontal armor was nearly immune to the IS-2’s gun at all but near-point blank range. In general both the IS-2 and ISU-152 were much better suited to anti-infantry work or knocking down bunkers.

Overall, the Panther was a tougher tank from head-on than the IS-2 and the 70-caliber KwK 42 gun had the muzzle velocity to fling AP shot hard and accurate (muzzle velocity is the real currency in antiarmor work, which is why modern tanks use subcaliber sabot rounds for the job). The Panther’s real weakness was that the side and rear armor were thin enough to be vulnerable to even the medium-velocity 75 mm guns of the Sherman and Cromwell.

The key in using the various tanks is to realize what they’re good at and arrange the battle so they can exploit those advantages. German tanks are good at long-range head-on gun duels; screen them with your own infantry to keep off partisans and AT troops and cover them with mobile AA and interceptor sorties. Scouting support is key to using the range of those 88s, so scatter scouts across the field and/or order up air sorties to spot targets. When attacking I generally use a big formation of Panthers to rip through a flank and make a bloody mess; once that’s done my King Tigers come rolling in behind them with infantry, halftrack, and mobile AA support to deal with the incoming hornet’s nest and crush the enemy base. If it’s a big map I’ll add Wespes and possibly towed Nebelwerfers to the package.

The mistake your opponent made was threefold. First, he didn’t mass his armor, which is contrary to tank doctrine - unless you have tanks attached to small infantry units for something like urban combat, you want them in numbers. I would rather not risk tanks on an attack unless I have >10 of them; 30 or more would be better. Sending just two is asking for a whipping. Second, he didn’t support them with infantry. An assault squad would have made short work of those partisans. Third, he used German heavies in a knife-fight rather than standing back and letting them pick targets off, which makes their slow turret speed an issue.