NEWBIE NEED ADVICE :)

[gandr]

I have a question....i am new to modern ghq rules. I played a few battles, i undestand the rules, but i dont see a reason why to use vehicles such as TOW and other missile based vehicles with their very VERY weak armor and VERY high costs! Why should i pay 350 points for a vehicle with 3 armor if i can buy tank worth 550 points with the same ATGM and armor around 20? The same with IFVs...for example a BMP-3 wich costs about 410 points and a T-90 wich costs about 550 points. And the BMP doesnt stand a chance against any sort of tank

[Whistle Beek]

I can think of lots of reasons to pay for the BMPs. First, in a tactical way, the BMPs pack an ATGM! Re-read the Range Effect Chart. ATGM weapons DO NOT suffer a loss of AP over range! At a range of 40 inches (4000 yards) the AP value is identical to what it was at minimum range. Not true for the gun on the tank. - depending on the Tech level of the tank's gun, at 40" there is a die roll modifier of +3 or +4 on each 'shot.'

Beyond that, I like to play games based on what real armies actually field. Mechanized Infantry units have AFVs, not tanks. Tank units have tanks. No armies are 'just' tanks. I like to use the rules to play out actions that reflect what would / might really happen in the real world. Tanks without close infantry support are in real trouble in bad terrain - that's why forces are mixed.

[gandr]

yeah, i know what you mean. i always buy some BMPs just becouse i love how thei look but after few games,it seems that tanks dominate the battlefield no matter if we have two stands or ten stands...thei are just way too gooood and about the ATGM...yes, that is right...but allmost every russian tank has ATGMs as well. So when i decide if to buy a BMP3 worth 400 points or T90 worth 550...the choice is very easy...i take T90 i buy few BMP2 or even BMP1 instead of one BMP3. This is the smallest problem i have, i buy them, thei are sometimes worth their points....but....what about the rocket vehicles such as TOW nad so on....thei cost nearly as many points as a tank!!! and thei just cant survive long enough to do some good

[CA-68]

Are you using infantry in your games? The BMPs primary reason for existing is to carry infantry, not to engage other AFVs. While your using them, you might want to position them where they can get a shot with their ATGM at near maximum range, where its advantage over an enemy tank will be the most noticable.

Funny how most games seem to degenerate to "tank vs tank" though. I never really noticed it until it was mentioned here....gonna have to try and change that,

[Extra Crispy]

That's easy to fix. Don't put any on the table! There's nothing like a down to earth mano a mano infantry fight!

[gandr]

yes, i use infantry...in fact, i use lots and lots of infantry...i love thoose poor bastards and that is reason why i use BMPs. But even if you put something like BMP to a forest and you will be 40" away from a tank, he will kill you. If tank has firepower around 22 and BMP as one of the best IFVs i know, has defense 10...the BMP cant stand a chance against even one shot from tank. In our last game, i had three stands of T90 and friend had three stands of Merkava4, rest of our armies where IFVs and lots of infantry...and even here the tanks realy dominated the game. I was unable to kill even one merkava
Solution is to not use tanks in some games, but i dont want to force any one to use only some types of units, that is not fair. And as i said, we both had only three stands of tanks.....and merkavas are[really swell] tanks May be someone can tell me how to destroy these tanks without using much more tanks than opponent has


[edited for language - CAMA]

[chrisswim]

go ask Hamas....

Put four 152mm rounds underground and set it off when a Merkava IV goes over.... Understand that tank has specific features for the fighting that they have encountered.

Understand the statistics/values of a rule set can be & usually are very different than reality.

[groundlber]

The problem with most point based games is that some units point cost is way out of line with their game effectiveness. The problem is magnified when there is a significant change in technology or tactics in the time period the rules cover. Anyone ever seen a WRG Ancients game? I don't think there's enough Ancient Egyptian infantry in the world to take on a Byzantine force of equivalent point value.
Anyway, back to armor. The various TOW vehicles were designed in the 1970's and 80's. The NATO doctrine of the time was for the ground forces to fight a series of delaying actions. The TOW vehicles were to find hull down positions and snipe at the Warsaw Pact as they charged across the inner German border. Not many plans (by the Americans, at least) of launching attacks east. Jump forward 25 + years, and most Sov-(excuse me, Russian) tanks seem to carry some ATGMs, both to compensate for the poorer accuracy of the cannon at longer ranges, and (I think) to snipe at NATO anti tank helicopters and ATGM vehicles. Different tactical situation, different operational doctrine.
Another solution for the tanks domination of the battlefield is a forward observer with a laser designator and an artillery battery with some laser homing projectiles.

Groundlber

[Mk 1]

Player A takes two tanks.

Player B takes two IFVs, and infantry.

Player B runs into the town and de-busses.

Anyone here actually want Player A's job of winking out the infantry without any of his own?

What I've seen described here so far is not a bad reflection of reality. BMPs would get slaughtered in a stand-up fight with modern MBTs. Nothing dominates a battlefield like a modern MBT in a good fighting position. That's why armies buy 'em!

So don't try to fight tanks with IFVs in a jousting match. If it is good "tank country", leave it to the tanks. Put your infantry in closer terrain. Use your IFVs to get them there, and to support them when you do get them there.

Just let the tanks try to get in to the close terrain without their own crunchies to escort them, and all of a sudden those tanks are not quite so likely to dominate the battlefield.

[gandr]

thank you for your replyes

It is all true what you say, but not so easy on the battlefield. With merkavas front armor of 22 it is not easy task to do some harm to them. Only my T-90s could do some work, but thei all died in the start of battle, becouse merkava has firepower 27 and t90 has armor 20...so...bye bye my little tanks so, situation becomes quite desperate when i was facing 2 merkavas mk4 backed up by about three companies of infantry in nearby forest. I had at my disposal around 4 BMP-1s and 5 BTR-90 AT, Hind E and lots and lots of infantry with ATGMs in each platoon. My infantry with BTRs were dug in a forest too and my BMPs were trying a flank attack, but thei were soon cut to pieces, so i was stuck in the forest trying to destroy his tanks....but my firepower 17 against his armor 22 did not do any harm

[chrisswim]

Player A takes two tanks.

Player B takes two IFVs, and infantry.

Player B runs into the town and de-busses.

Anyone here actually want Player A's job of winking out the infantry without any of his own?

What I've seen described here so far is not a bad reflection of reality. BMPs would get slaughtered in a stand-up fight with modern MBTs. Nothing dominates a battlefield like a modern MBT in a good fighting position. That's why armies buy 'em!

So don't try to fight tanks with IFVs in a jousting match. If it is good "tank country", leave it to the tanks. Put your infantry in closer terrain. Use your IFVs to get them there, and to support them when you do get them there.

Just let the tanks try to get in to the close terrain without their own crunchies to escort them, and all of a sudden those tanks are not quite so likely to dominate the battlefield.

In most games the tanks will still win. In reality in the field/town the infantry win. The brits at Villers-Bocage got smack by the Germans.

[gandr]

on last battle i bought helicopter and some airstrikes, even the mighty Merkava4 doesnt stand a chance against airstrikes

[kgpanzer]

Player A takes two tanks.

Player B takes two IFVs, and infantry.

Player B runs into the town and de-busses.

Anyone here actually want Player A's job of winking out the infantry without any of his own?

What I've seen described here so far is not a bad reflection of reality. BMPs would get slaughtered in a stand-up fight with modern MBTs. Nothing dominates a battlefield like a modern MBT in a good fighting position. That's why armies buy 'em!

So don't try to fight tanks with IFVs in a jousting match. If it is good "tank country", leave it to the tanks. Put your infantry in closer terrain. Use your IFVs to get them there, and to support them when you do get them there.

Just let the tanks try to get in to the close terrain without their own crunchies to escort them, and all of a sudden those tanks are not quite so likely to dominate the battlefield.

In most games the tanks will still win. In reality in the field/town the infantry win. The brits at Villers-Bocage got smack by the Germans.

I agree with Chris here...this past origins I did a large battle called Bargration <sp> I had a company of German Gren dug in for a delaying action....with hand held AT abilties I stopped cold a Russian tank and infantry BN..the game was FOW and the dice rolls was in my favor...for once in my life....but still can be done

[Mk 1]

It is hard to seperate the rules-induced issues from the reality-induced issues here.

There are lots of popular micro-scale rules that focus on the tanks, and don't handle infantry very well. It has been one of the great searches of my gaming years to find rules that present a good reflection of what I perceive as the capabilities and characteristics of each arm in combined-arms land warfare.

I have been pretty impressed by Panzer War, and by Mein Panzer.


In this game (described in an AAR on a seperate thread), Italian infantry finished off a French Panhard armored car that had been imobilized in town. The Panny's fate was sealed as soon as it lost the ability to run from the infantry.


Whereas the French infantry stood no chance against armor ... even against tankettes. My Italian L3s stayed out of town, and placed overwhelming amounts of MG fire onto any French infantry foolish enough to try to resist the advance of the Italian infantry.

Here I was playing against a veteran though (he TC'd an Abrams in Desert Storm), who appreciated the firepower of tanks ... even tanks as puny as L3s. So he pulled his infantry back, to the best of his ability, into the second row of houses, daring me to come in to the town. But that was a job for my grunts, not my treadheads.

The reality-induced issues are several, here:

1) Merkavas are hard to kill. That's true no matter what you're fighting them with. Its not an accident... the Israelis put a lot of effort into making sure they are hard to kill. If the rules you are playing with make Merkavas hard to kill, that's a good thing! It may make the gaming less balanced, but it makes it more realistic. You're struggling not with your newbie-ness in gaming, but with the tactical challenges faced by a commander who has to fight against Israeli armor. Many experienced and professional soldiers have done worse than you.

2) The place of the IFV on modern high-intensity -- or even low-intensity -- battlefields is not assured. The US Army's vision for how to use IFVs has driven the development of the Bradley. The Brits have a different vision, and have produced a different IFV in the Warrior. The Soviet IFVs have evolved in a different direction yet, starting from the original BMP and BMP-2, and now evolving into a very dramatic vehicle in the BMP-3. Yet the Israelis, with perhaps the most combat experience to call on among them all, have eschewed the concept of the IFV altogether, instead moving uniquely in the direction of heavy APCs. To the Israelis, the role of mech infantry is to be infantry, and to fight as infantry, and the role of whatever they are carried in is to get them to where they can fight like infantry, and to protect them while they go there. So Israeli APCs now have MBT levels of protection, and perhaps an MG or two. Very different than a Bradley or BMP.

Who's right? Who knows! That's the fun of gaming ... we get to test the doctrines and tactics without anybody getting killed.

[gandr]

thanks a lot for many interesting thoughts gets

i would like to try rules sets like mein panzer, but we are playing modern for now, we have been playing WW2 for almost my whole life (and Warhammer, W40k, Gothic, Epic40k, napoleonic, medieval, ancients,... )