Tanks vs. infantry

[Jaranja]

When a Tank aims your way, what do you do?

Die?.. just a hunch.

Sorry, the answer we were looking for was "Invade France"

/gameshow music.

Damn it! As soon as I answered, I was thinking that.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

This makes me want to play Close Combat 3 again. It was fun controlling T-34s in that game and I'll bet that it was slightly more realistic than Red Alert, although I'm sure there are games that are even more realistic.

I don't know why tanks wouldn't be effective against infantry. Infantry can use cover really well in some terrain but in the open I wouldn't bet on them.

 

[Nutcase]

I get it with balance, but when its one man standing on a open piece of land, getting hit time and time again, how does he survive that?(dont say balance)

The same reason he has a health bar and doesn't die to the first shot of an enemy rifleman. It's a squad of men depicted as one man. The damage model fits well if you think about it like that.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

This raises my only real problem with MAG. You can hit someone with an antitank rocket and they live, because they are not a tank.

 

[AKmontalvo]

I get it with balance, but when its one man standing on a open piece of land, getting hit time and time again, how does he survive that?(dont say balance)

I think the logic may be that the individual infantry units are jumping, taking cover, diving out of the way, etc. of direct shell hits and instead getting injured from nearby explosions or flying debris (which would be why they still recieve lesser amounts of damage; but the damage is despersed over group clusters of infantry). However, without these animations of soldiers evading shell blasts, it would just look like a dude standing around in the open enduring cannon shot after cannon shot.

The logic made sense in my weird little C&C universe anyway

 

[DividedUnity]

Eh tanks where pretty damn effective against infantry in company of heroes. Though in command and conquer id say its just soyou have some defense against someone rushing your base with a bunch of tanks.

 

[Dedtoo]

I get it with balance, but when its one man standing on a open piece of land, getting hit time and time again, how does he survive that?(dont say balance)

The same reason he has a health bar and doesn't die to the first shot of an enemy rifleman. It's a squad of men depicted as one man. The damage model fits well if you think about it like that.

Oooooh...

 

[Nutcase]

This makes me want to play Close Combat 3 again. It was fun controlling T-34s in that game and I'll bet that it was slightly more realistic than Red Alert, although I'm sure there are games that are even more realistic.

I don't know why tanks wouldn't be effective against infantry. Infantry can use cover really well in some terrain but in the open I wouldn't bet on them.

Infantry will never fight tanks out in the open, unless they have no choice (such as if they get ambushed). They'll wait in foxholes or natural cover, or advance in cover. Tanks have no reasonable way to attack and mop up infantry that stays in cover.

OTOH light anti-tank weapons' range is short enough that the tanks are safe from the infantry as long as they can stay far enough in open space. The infantry can't advance on them.

 

[atled3]

actually tanks in C&C can massacre infantry, just drive towards them the more tanks the better.

 

[NeutralDrow]

If the C&C games are anything like Dune 2000 (aside from the same engine and all), then Tanks are awesome against infantry. It's just that shooting single, large-calibur rounds against a group of human-sized opponents might take out a few of them (measured in hitpoint damange), but running them over will take care of them all.

 

[Mariena]

It's just a thing that balances the units in games. Nothing else. Tanks are very good against infantry.

Not without machineguns.

Infantry will never fight tanks out in the open, unless they have no choice (such as if they get ambushed). They'll wait in foxholes or natural cover, or advance in cover. Tanks have no reasonable way to attack and mop up infantry that stays in cover.

The M1028 cartridge would like to think otherwise.

Spoiler

And so does any other HEAT weapon.

OTOH light anti-tank weapons' range is short enough that the tanks are safe from the infantry as long as they can stay far enough in open space. The infantry can't advance on them.

The FGM-148 would like to think otherwise.

Spoiler

And if you happen to be part of the armed forces that's not in NATO .. There's always ATGMs like the 9M133 Kornet. And RPG-29.

 

[azncutthroat]

It's just a thing that balances the units in games. Nothing else. Tanks are very good against infantry.

Not without machineguns.

Infantry will never fight tanks out in the open, unless they have no choice (such as if they get ambushed). They'll wait in foxholes or natural cover, or advance in cover. Tanks have no reasonable way to attack and mop up infantry that stays in cover.

The M1028 cartridge would like to think otherwise.

Spoiler

And so does any other HEAT weapon.

OTOH light anti-tank weapons' range is short enough that the tanks are safe from the infantry as long as they can stay far enough in open space. The infantry can't advance on them.

The FGM-148 would like to think otherwise.

Spoiler

And if you happen to be part of the armed forces that's not in NATO .. There's always ATGMs like the 9M133 Kornet. And RPG-29.

You also forgot that HEAT rounds, which I'm sure composes the majority of most tank load-outs, aren't exactly the most effective shell to use against infantry.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

Good luck to any infantry fighting THAT.

 

[Hiphophippo]

Infantry > Tanks

As Sir Thomas Hanks proved to us.

 

[Mariena]

It's just a thing that balances the units in games. Nothing else. Tanks are very good against infantry.

Not without machineguns.

Infantry will never fight tanks out in the open, unless they have no choice (such as if they get ambushed). They'll wait in foxholes or natural cover, or advance in cover. Tanks have no reasonable way to attack and mop up infantry that stays in cover.

The M1028 cartridge would like to think otherwise.

Spoiler

And so does any other HEAT weapon.

OTOH light anti-tank weapons' range is short enough that the tanks are safe from the infantry as long as they can stay far enough in open space. The infantry can't advance on them.

The FGM-148 would like to think otherwise.

Spoiler

And if you happen to be part of the armed forces that's not in NATO .. There's always ATGMs like the 9M133 Kornet. And RPG-29.

You also forgot that HEAT rounds, which I'm sure composes the majority of most tank load-outs, aren't exactly the most effective shell to use against infantry.

Not the most effective, but pretty damn effective regardless.

What's the "also" for though?

Depends on the Tank. Like infantry, tanks come in many different forms. Some are specialised to handle infantry, some are not, same goes with infantry.

Also C&C tanks suck major amounts of assage, not actual tanks. Actual tanks usually have at least one machine gunner, if not two, making them some what effective to say the least. Course, infantry can hide better and get the drop on tanks.

Quote from the 100 year war. "The days of Knights owning the field of battle is over."
It's fast becoming that way now. Tanks have their uses, as do infantry. The uses are generally very specfic however. You certainly wouldn't march men against a tank head on, but you certaintly wouldn't take a tank into an area full of potential cover and hiding spots either.

Right on! A little correction though.. it's been that way since the end of World War 1. As hundreds of thousands of infantry casualties for 5 miles of land demonstrated that all infantry assaults aren't all that effective, combined arms came into play at last. An all tank army will always fight less effective than a "tank army" with infantry and APCs combined.

This means modern warfare, though .. I suppose you can argue that "combined arms" have been around since the day of archers, cavalry, pikemen and swordsmen ..

 

[Nutcase]

It's just a thing that balances the units in games. Nothing else. Tanks are very good against infantry.

Not without machineguns.

Infantry will never fight tanks out in the open, unless they have no choice (such as if they get ambushed). They'll wait in foxholes or natural cover, or advance in cover. Tanks have no reasonable way to attack and mop up infantry that stays in cover.

The M1028 cartridge would like to think otherwise.

Designed to be used against attacking massed infantry.
How exactly do you think it's relevant against infantry in cover? In this case it wouldn't even matter if they are appropriately dispersed or not, since there is no pressure or shrapnel effect.

And so does any other HEAT weapon.

Wut? The M1028 is not a HEAT weapon.

And while fragmentation rounds - including multipurpose HEAT rounds - do have some effect on dug in troops, you would need to expend an absurd amount of them before it would be reasonably safe to drive over there and take the area. And that's assuming you know roughly where said position is in the first place, and assuming you have a line of fire - both of which the infantry will attempt to deny you.

Unworkable in practice. Tanks without infantry or artillery support are not good for attacking a prepared infantry position if said infantry has AT weapons.

OTOH light anti-tank weapons' range is short enough that the tanks are safe from the infantry as long as they can stay far enough in open space. The infantry can't advance on them.

The FGM-148 would like to think otherwise.
And if you happen to be part of the armed forces that's not in NATO .. There's always ATGMs like the 9M133 Kornet. And RPG-29.

I have a hard time thinking about a $200,000, 20+kg anti-tank missile as a "light" weapon. But sure, if you happen to have them, you can threaten tanks much farther away.

The RPG-29 and lighter weapons are ubiquitous and exactly the reason why tanks want to stay well in the open, out of the range of these things. (Plus the tank's own FoF of course.)