Best way to kill a Tank Unit ?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

There are no accounts in WWII of a full strength corps being destroyed by airpower alone.

I believe it's been mentioned earlier, but the 2nd Guards Tank Corps was annihilated by airpower alone at Kursk (giving it the dubious distinction of being the only such unit in all of WW II). However, you can make the point that quite a few units were made unfit for combat by airpower, allowing ground troops to (essentially) roll through what was left and finish the job airpower started which could be considered annihilation in game terms.
Jyri

This is what I read about the Battle of Kursk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk

Here is the section about the 2nd Tank Corps.

"Main operations — the southern face

Air battles

The German advance in the SouthThe offensive opened, as in the north, with a mass of air activity. German air attacks helped badly maul the Soviet 57th and 67th Guard Divisions. As the Luftwaffe shifted its attention against the 6th Tank Corps, it left the skies empty over the 4. Panzerarmee. As a result of Soviet superiority in the air, reinforced Soviet defences, and a lack of heavy air support, the Großdeutschland Division had around 80 of its 350 tanks operational. Later, the 2nd Soviet Guards Tank Corps attacked the flank of the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. In desperation, the Germans launched waves of Fw 190 Fs of 4.(Pz)/Schlachtgeschwader 1 and Hs 129s of I./Jagdgeschwader 51's Panzerjägerstaffel to halt the attack. Using SD-2 anti-personnel bombs, the Luftwaffe was able to inflict heavy losses to Soviet soldiers and "soft" vehicles. The Luftwaffe attacked the Soviet 2nd Tank Corps from dawn to dusk, and Hauptmann Bruno Meyer, Staffelkapitain of I./Sch.G 1 noted: "It was impossible for us to count how many tanks we knocked out". As a result of the losses sustained by the Soviet 2nd Tank Corp, the 5th Guards Tank Corps began their offensive against the II.SS Panzerkorps alone, and failed, with heavy losses.[60] By the end of the day, 2 VA lost 45 aircraft (including 22 Sturmoviks), 17 VA lost 37 Sturmoviks alone. The Soviets lost approximately 90 machines on this date, while the Luftwaffe suffered 11 losses, mostly Ju 87s. The Soviets began attacking German rear areas at night, with the 2 and 17 VA flying 269 sorties in 24 hours.[61]"

Here you can read that the 2nd Tank Corps launched an attack upon the 1st SS LSSAH division and was hit hard by Luftwaffe units all day. So it was in heavy land combat when the Luftwaffe attacked it and the article didn't see the unit was completely destroyed. It simply became so battered so it couldn't fight (getting down to a cadre).

In CeaW BJR-mod this operation can be seen as a German armor attack upon the Russian tank unit. First the Luftwaffe launch 2 bombers (max for the hex) and then attack with an armor unit. Then the battered Soviet tank unit retreats and the new hex can again be attacked by 2 air units and so on if the unit retreats again.

So a unit that's retreating can be pursued by even more air attacks and eventually annihilated by mostly air, just as what happened at the battle of Kursk.

The attack attack limitation is not per unit, but per hex. That is an important distinction.

Another reason that the air attack limitation is important is without it the entrenchment levels for cities, fortresses and capitals could go from max extrenchment level to 0 in just one turn. E. g. if you send 8 air raids against a capital then you can break even the most entrenched unit in just one turn. The Gustav line can easily be crushed etc because you simply focus all your air upon one hex until it falls. In the real war the Allied struggled against the Gustav line in Italy for many months before they broke through.

The air attack limitation per hex protects the units in cities, fortresses and capitals because these units can't be forced to retreat so they will often survive the air attack and land attacks unless it comes from 3+ hexes. Then the battered unit can be replaced or repaired. This better simulates that cities could last attacks for several months before falling. Without the limitation it's easy for the Germans to e. g. take Leningrad. Just send 4 bombers and some fighters to deplete it severely and let the Finns and Germans from the south kill the Leningrad defender. In the real war Leningrad never fell and survived a siege for almost 1000 days.

So unlimited air attacks per hex can be exploited and ruin the fun for an otherwise good game. We think 2 air attacks per hex is enough, but it can easily be increased to 3 or more in general.txt if that's desired. 3 is attacks per hex is still much better than unlimited attacks as now.

[ncali]

The 2 air attack per hex limitation really works in my opinion. With it, battles have a more historical feel.

Without it, too many ahistorical things can happen. For example, with enough air, it's easy to polish off a fort like Leningrad (or any other strong point such as Monte Cassino) in one turn - without even attacking with any ground troops. Or to punch a big hole in a line - again without a single land attack. Without the limitation, it was not uncommon to destroy many corps and take many cities with airpower alone. Air was simply not that powerful in World War II, in a strategic sense (although I don't doubt there are plenty examples of tactical devastation). If tanks were out in the open preparing an attack then they were temporarily very vulnerable to attack from the air - but only because of tactical considerations on the ground. Air was an inadequate tool to take territory when employed alone. Also, as has been pointed out, other things were going on in 20 days like reinforcement, troop movement and rotation, entrenchment and use of rubble by the defenders, etc.

All things being equal, I'd prefer going with a rule that has the effect of promoting a more historical game - even if the rule itself may seem arbitrary.

[joerock22]

I think the 2 air attack per hex rule is fine as it is; 3 might be too much. And it is definitely a necessary rule. In a recent vanilla game, I had about 30-40 Russian units line up 3 deep in front of Perm, but my opponent was able to make a hole in the center with 20+ air units and I couldn't do anything about it.

You can still do a lot of damage with 2 air attacks. In fact, this is one reason the Soviets need to gain air parity as soon as possible: so the Luftwaffe can't damage their tanks and make them easy for the ground forces to destroy. I'm rambling a bit, but I think the 2 air attack rule should stay as is. Don't change a thing!

[Kuz]

Here you can read that the 2nd Tank Corps launched an attack upon the 1st SS LSSAH division and was hit hard by Luftwaffe units all day. So it was in heavy land combat when the Luftwaffe attacked it and the article didn't see the unit was completely destroyed. It simply became so battered so it couldn't fight (getting down to a cadre).

And how do you translate this to game terms? I think this may be where the problem comes in. When a unit is eliminated it does not mean that it was totally destroyed only that it was reduced to a level where it was no longer an effective fighting force. So I guess the question is can multiple air strikes against a unit remove it from the game as an effective fighting force independently of a ground assault? It still takes a ground unit to go in an take the hex, mop up.

Just because it took the Germans never took Leningrad or it took months for the Allies to penetrate the Gustav line in the war means that we as players must do so.

It also occurs to me that I've seen a single corp of mid to late war tanks by themselves routinely wipe out entire 10 step tank/infantry corps of comparable tech value's, supply levels and leadered in one turn. No chance of replacments etc.. It doesn't make sense to me to me that you'd take issue with a player choosing to launch his entire air force at a target and call foul when a single ground unit by itself can do the same thing?

[Kuz]

Sorry screwed up the quote thing in last post.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Sorry screwed up the quote thing in last post.

I understand what you meant.

Have you ever played a game with max 2 air attacks per hex? About all I know who have played the BJR-mod like this change.

In most wargames air units only give support to land attacks (adding combat factors, shifting the odds table etc.). This is one of the few games where air units do direct damage without being linked to a land combat.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to try out a few games with the BJR-mod first? Remember that many of the changes we made were done to avoid people exploiting certain weaknesses in the vanilla game. E. g. the sub war doesn't work at all in the vanilla game. It's not perfect in the BJR-mod either, but it works a lot better. The Germans will now build quite a lot of subs and the Allies must ESCORT their convoys instead of lurking in the central Atlantic waiting to strike at subs that attacked within range.

[Kuz]

Yes I've tried the mod several times. I wouldn't have posted had I not played it a bit.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Yes I've tried the mod several times. I wouldn't have posted had I not played it a bit.

So do you feel something is not working because you can only attack an hex twice with air units. I usually spread my air units in the first half of the war to get more targets I could attack with land units. My experience is that it's only the Allies join get the airpower to send hordes of air units against a single unit. The Germans and Russian CAN do it, but they have som many targets to attack so they often spread their units.

[schwerpunkt]

Just for info, with enough tech advantage, 2 experienced TACs can destroy an armoured unit outright if it is in open terrain. Have been playing a PBEM game recently as the German player where I have destroyed several soviet tank units that way, so I definately support the two limit as being reasonable.

[jjdenver]

To be honest I'd rather reduce it to 1 air attack per hex than increase it to 3 per hex. 3 would be ridiculous imo - completely disagree w/ moving it to 3.

In any case it's possible to mod this to 3 or 4 or whatever number apparently w/ the new mod version - so if Kuz can find anyone who prefers to play with a number higher than 2 then he can have a game that way.

[Kuz]

LOL, Well actually Mr. Denver I have a group of friends that I play wargames with and having been gaming with for about the last 25 years or so. Finding competition isn't a problem but thanks for your concern. LOL

I posted mainly in response to the "this is more historical" asertation than anything else. I've been playing these types of games for a very long time and I always shudder when I see that kind of remark. If the rule change is to play balance a game thats fine, if a rule changes because joe shmo thinks A. is more historical than B. I take issue with it. How boring would it be to refight WWII exactly historical, if I wanted that I'd go read a history book. Give me the starting parameters of what countries had at the beginning of WW2....or earlier and let me decide the rest. mauahahahaha

[rkr1958]

If the rule change is to play balance a game thats fine, if a rule changes because joe shmo thinks A. is more historical than B. I take issue with it. How boring would it be to refight WWII exactly historical, if I wanted that I'd go read a history book. Give me the starting parameters of what countries had at the beginning of WW2....or earlier and let me decide the rest. mauahahahaha

Our objective is not to recreate the exact events and timeline of WWII in Europe but to create a mod within the framework of the CEaW game engine and map that's (1) fun to play, (2) balanced, (3) has significant replay value and (4) creates a gameflow and sequence of events that's has a historical possible feel to it. (1), (2) and (3) have nothing to do with historical accuracy and can be determined and tweaked through playtestings. In fact, I would say with confidence that the vanilla CEaW easily meets all three of these criteria. It was the vanilla CEaW that hooked all of us on the development and test teams on this game. What we're trying to do is to do in our mod is to maximize its historical accuracy while still satisfying (1) - (3). No doubt all of this is very subjective; especially, with respect to what in game terms was/in historically possible in WWII and was was/is not. We make judgments; but we make them as a team and based on our understanding of history. We also make them from feedback and suggestions provided by the CEaW gaming community. There have been countless tweaks make based on comments from people who are not part of the development or testing teams. People who just enjoy playing the CEaW and our mod; just like we do. We certainly appreciate all constructive feedback and criticisms. So, thanks for your inputs.

[Celeborn]

Perhaps the most decisive factor in destroying armor--or any other unit for that matter--is timing. If you are trying to demolish a full strength unit that is dug in, well, good luck. The trick is to find/create opportunities to destroy units via counterattacks, which typically enjoy the following advantages:

1) target is at reduced strength due to recent attack...this can be accentuated by ensure that your "bait" units have maximal AT, AA etc depending on what sort of unit you are targeting.

2) target is at reduced effectiveness for having moved (ground units only)

3) target is not dug in (ground units only)

4) target has advanced beyond supporting units allowing attack from 3 or ever 4 hexes (ground units only)

5) target has been lured out of defensive terrain

In my limited experience (mod only) I have found that tactical bombers are your best bet for destroying armor, esp for the Luftwaffe which has an initial Close Air advance. Armor can be effective but if you are going to go that route you had better make an up front investment in TD technology (which has the additional benefit of improving your armor's AA capabilities). My operational doctrine essentially involves:

1) establish air superiority via quantity and quality of your fighters (Air should be your #1 priority for research, with strong consideration given to an emphasis on Dogfighting), which then allows you to...

2) destroy enemy armor (and where possible motorized) with tactical bombers, which then allows you to...

3) safely employ your armor to destroy enemy infantry, which leads to...

4) selecting which pen you want your enemy to us when signing the articles of surrender

[mgdpublic]

Can someone explain to a newb why the first ground attack unit shouldn't be another tank? I would have thought a tank because of its big shock value bonus.

[shawkhan]

Air, even when it doesn't cause damage, can lower effectiveness, making a unit less capable of causing damage to your armor when it attacks. To kill armor I usually bang it twice with air, then armor and finally infantry if that is all I have. Even the 1940 French can kill panzers if you do it correctly.

[mgdpublic]

I meant besides Air. Most people in the beginning of the thread were talking about Air, Infantry and then finishing with a tank. I was wondering why Infantry would attack before tank.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This is because the infantry will take most of the losses and you can send in your armor to finish off the enemy armor and take very little losses yourself. You keep most of your efficiency and can continue to attack next turn as well.

If you initiate your attacks with armor you can get quite a few step losses if unlucky. That's inviting your opponent to counter attack your armor. E. g. the French armor is great at hunting down depleted German armor in 1940. If they attack a 9 or 10 step German armor then you inflict some damage, but won't destroy it.

So using infantry first is to make sure your armor units remain as a fighting for for several more turns during the offensive. If you e. g. get so many step losses so the unit is down to 6-7 steps then you might have to spend an entire turn repairing the armor. If I use the armor to finish off enemy units I usually get 0-1 steps losses per attack. That means I can use the armor for several turns before it must be repaired.

[mgdpublic]

This is because the infantry will take most of the losses and you can send in your armor to finish off the enemy armor and take very little losses yourself. You keep most of your efficiency and can continue to attack next turn as well.

If you initiate your attacks with armor you can get quite a few step losses if unlucky. That's inviting your opponent to counter attack your armor. E. g. the French armor is great at hunting down depleted German armor in 1940. If they attack a 9 or 10 step German armor then you inflict some damage, but won't destroy it.

So using infantry first is to make sure your armor units remain as a fighting for for several more turns during the offensive. If you e. g. get so many step losses so the unit is down to 6-7 steps then you might have to spend an entire turn repairing the armor. If I use the armor to finish off enemy units I usually get 0-1 steps losses per attack. That means I can use the armor for several turns before it must be repaired.

But it would seem to me that since your infantry fights tanks less efficiently due to the lower shock value, your losing more "total army power." Whatever you choose to use first you still have to eventually heal so as long as you don't lose the tank (since repair is only 70% of cost per strength) doesn't it make sense to you them first? I'm sure I'm not getting something here but it's still unclear.

[rkr1958]

This is because the infantry will take most of the losses and you can send in your armor to finish off the enemy armor and take very little losses yourself. You keep most of your efficiency and can continue to attack next turn as well.

If you initiate your attacks with armor you can get quite a few step losses if unlucky. That's inviting your opponent to counter attack your armor. E. g. the French armor is great at hunting down depleted German armor in 1940. If they attack a 9 or 10 step German armor then you inflict some damage, but won't destroy it.

So using infantry first is to make sure your armor units remain as a fighting for for several more turns during the offensive. If you e. g. get so many step losses so the unit is down to 6-7 steps then you might have to spend an entire turn repairing the armor. If I use the armor to finish off enemy units I usually get 0-1 steps losses per attack. That means I can use the armor for several turns before it must be repaired.

But it would seem to me that since your infantry fights tanks less efficiently due to the lower shock value, your losing more "total army power." Whatever you choose to use first you still have to eventually heal so as long as you don't lose the tank (since repair is only 70% of cost per strength) doesn't it make sense to you them first? I'm sure I'm not getting something here but it's still unclear.

An infantry corps cost 35 PPs and tank corps 80 PPs. It takes one turn to build an infantry corps and three turns to build a tank corps. The repair costs are 2.1 PPs per step for an infantry corps and 4.8 PPs per step for a tank corps.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

You also have to take into consideration the number of steps you inflict on your opponent. If you can use the armor units every turn because you rarely take losses then you inflict more damage.

You have more infantry so you can rotate infantry each turn. Some attack, some move and some repair / upgrade. So having a few depleted infantry units won't hamper much your ability to target hexes for combat. But if you get some quite depleted armor units you might have to halt part of your offensive since they must repair. That's not good when you want to use every fair weather turn to push your enemy.

It's the same with tactical bombers and fighters. If you have air superiority you can rotate the units so some repair and others bombard. I use fighters to bombard land units when I have air superiority e. g. with the Germans in 1941. They inflict less damage than bombers, but they inflict some shock damage and maybe some step losses and they remove one entrenchment level as well. So they're good against cities even though you get some extra air step losses.

The key is to make sure the units that can be counter attacked has the least risk as possible to receive lots of step losses from an attack that went wrong.

I can tell you that the Allied player does NOT like to have an Axis opponent who uses his armor and mech the way I described. This means that the Axis offensive firepower remains high for all of 1941 until the severe winter. So you don't get a breather to dig in. You're constantly pushed and the armor might break through and threaten with encirclements. A smart Russian player knows to fear the German armor and retreat instead of being smashed or surrounded.