Tank and Artillery Combat

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Many people get mislead about tank warfare, all my information is 100% true, I got it from my dad and brother, my dad served in the gulf war, and was in tank combat many a time.

If an M-4 Sherman shot at a modern M1 Abrams, it would depend on the angle of the shot, if it would do any damage, and on the distance. Even an old WWII Sherman, shot at a modern M1 Abrams with only a 75mm gun, if it hit perfectly head-on, then the shell COULD penetrate. What would happen is the shell would penetrate through one side, and either go through the other side, or bounce around a while inside, killing all the crewmen. If the shell sailed through both sides, the air pressure would be so great, that it would suck some (or all) of the crewman with the shell, through the tiny little hole, I am not exaggerating.

Although, naturally a sherman would not usually do much damage to a abrams, because of the armor.

But also, the modern Abrams' turrets are designed in a 'round' shape, so that usually another tanks shell would deflect, and not cause much damage.

And lastly on tanks, one of the biggest things I hated about civ2, was that 50% of the time a rifleman could destroy a tank...lol, yeah right. One blast from a modern tank (i.e. M1 Abrams) could kill as many as 20 men, depending on how bunched up they were. My Dad said that shrapnel can fly up to 20 feet, easily, which you know what that means...say goodbye to anyone within 20 feet of that blast.

Now about artillery, My brother used to serve in a cavalry regiment, which is artillery, Don't ask, I don't know why they call it cavalry. Anyway, I got some info. off of him on artillery combat.

The modern Howitzers, which are usually armed with a 155mm gun, can shoot from up to 20 miles away...thats right, 20 miles. He said that when the shells hit, they spread like shotgun shells, hitting several different places at once. He further said that one hit from a howitzer, and everything within a 30 yards is blown away. Now, if a tank caught a direct artillery shell, don't count on seeing any of the crewmen to that tank again.

The only drawback to artillery, is that most of it is moved by other vehicles, so if an artillery battery was attacked by say...10 tanks, there is no chance for that artillery battary to survive, for one thing, modern howitzers are not designed to fight at close range, they were meant mainly for bombarding cities and outposts and stuff...from a long distance.

well, Firaxis, I know most my these examples would be extremely hard to implement in civ3, but give it a try.

[Inverse Icarus]

actually, in SMAC, an "artillery" unit was ONLY capable of bombarding, no actual attacking.

so if a howie was given such charastics, i believe that they would be able to bombard units/cities from 2 spaces away (ala smac), and have little or no real attack/defence power.

i also like the idea of artillery having to be deployed, not sure if its implimented in civ 3, but it wasn't in smac :-/

[Case]

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
And lastly on tanks, one of the biggest things I hated about civ2, was that 50% of the time a rifleman could destroy a tank...lol, yeah right. One blast from a modern tank (i.e. M1 Abrams) could kill as many as 20 men, depending on how bunched up they were. My Dad said that shrapnel can fly up to 20 feet, easily, which you know what that means...say goodbye to anyone within 20 feet of that blast.

I think that the infantry units in Civ2 are ment to include AT guns/missiles as time progreses. Historically, Infantry have proved to be able to defeat armour when the terrain & military situation favoured them. (eg the Russians in Grozny, the Battle of Stalingrad the Battle of the Bulge and some of the tank attacks in WW1).
In open terrain however, infantry are generally doomed, no matter how good their AT defences (eg El-Alemain, Operation Cobra, Desert Storm).

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

You have a very good point, and I agree, curtain terrain should favor some types of infantry.

Also, I think there should be a new unit, AA Infantry, or AT Infantry (Anti-aircraft, anti-tank), which would be able to ATTACK tanks, while normal, rifle infantry could not, but only either withdraw, or defend.

[MORON]

Damn, where is people like MTG and lancer when you need them.

A M4 will have no chance in hell against a M1

[Deathwalker]

Personally I hope they do not use the same type of combat model used in SMAC as I felt that it was even less realasitic then Civ 2. So I hope is that they have developed a totally new combat model.

[Kc7mxo]

You are all wanting to be too specific. Civ 2 is a game of generalizations. Thats the whole point. I find that the artillery effect is silly. For it to work you have to accept the fact that those squares aren't very big. Perhaps 15 miles or so across.

Which then implies that the globe is so small we'd all fall off. Eh?

Civ2 is a generalization. And I've yet to see a tank get destroyed by an unfortified riflemen. And rifelemen in a prepared posisition probably do have a good chance of busting up some tanks. Though they don't have a high probability of victory, and in civ 2 they still don't. Veteran rifelemen fortified have, what, an 8 def? But a tank has an attack of 10. Veteran tank has an attack of 15. I think those odds are probably perty close. Of course, putting the riflemen inside a city behind walls, changes both the numbers and the reality.

[Shogun Gunner]

Agreed. Civ is based on generalization and abstraction .

Remember the turns are one year. Who knows how big the squares are? I have read in this forum several differenet plausible theories on the size of the squares. How many tanks are in an armor unit? Is it a platoon? regiment? division? army? The difference is 5,30 maybe even 200 tanks!

In modern times, the combined arms concept dictates that armor units have infantry and infantry units have armor.. along with other types of weapons and personnel. The fact that an armor unit is designated armor is due to the mix of these weapons and resources. Obviously an armor unit will have a few more tanks than an infantry unit.

I don't think simplifying it by saying x number of tanks attacked my rifleman suits the desing of the game. The earlier comment by
Case is right, there are lot of anti-tank weapons and tactics designed to destroy tanks that would be employed by the lowly rifleman.

Personally, I like the abstraction and can live with it just fine. There are other games to play that have much more specific squad/tank level combat action.

[Lemmy]

personally, i would like artelliry units that can bombard several spaces away.

a solution to the rifleman vs tank problem could be to increase the attack and defense points for later units, let them run into hundred, maybe even thousands. The first units would still have 1 or 2 attack, but later tanks could have maybe 50 or 80 attack.

[ancient]

i think all military units should just progress naturaly; riflemen used in the civil war dont have the same waepons as rifleme used in ww1.
also i think the units represent a larger squad not just one person.
so as time progresses the units will gain more streangth or something..

[MORON]

When is the last time artillery bombardments lasted one year and was fired over 200kms?

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Originally posted by MORON
Damn, where is people like MTG and lancer when you need them.

A M4 will have no chance in hell against a M1

Forgive me, but....are you stupid?

My Dad has seen an M1 Abrams get blown to bits by those crappy Iraqi tanks, which are about equivelant to a WWII Sherman with his own eyes, but of course that was 10 years ago, now the Iraqi's have finally updated their equipment in the last 5 or so years. I have seen a picture of the golf war, my dad was standing on one of our M1's...its turret had been blown away by an Iraqi M3, which is almost as crappy as our old M4's. I know what I am talking about.

You are right, in general combat, an old Sherman M4 has no chance against our modern Abrams, BUT, it is possible for a sherman to destroy a M1.

You also have to remember, there were 3 types of shermans, 1. M5 (the oldest and weakest), 2. M4, and then during the fifties they had some M3's, which were a bit stronger then the ones we used in WWII.

And to the rest of you, I said nothing about howitzers or artillery being able to fire from 2 or 3 squares away, All I said was that they should ONLY be allowed to bombard, and not attack other units.

We are not talking about civ2, but civ3, and already we have seen in the screenshots that the landscape, and milage will be very different.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Now about artillery, My brother used to serve in a cavalry regiment, which is artillery, Don't ask, I don't know why they call it cavalry. Anyway, I got some info. off of him on artillery combat.

The modern Howitzers, which are usually armed with a 155mm gun, can shoot from up to 20 miles away...thats right, 20 miles. He said that when the shells hit, they spread like shotgun shells, hitting several different places at once. He further said that one hit from a howitzer, and everything within a 30 yards is blown away. Now, if a tank caught a direct artillery shell, don't count on seeing any of the crewmen to that tank again.

The only drawback to artillery, is that most of it is moved by other vehicles, so if an artillery battery was attacked by say...10 tanks, there is no chance for that artillery battary to survive, for one thing, modern howitzers are not designed to fight at close range, they were meant mainly for bombarding cities and outposts and stuff...from a long distance.

There are 155mm self-propelled cannons/howitzers. The M109 A3G is one. Here's a picture of it:



Top speed is about 70 km/h. It is also capable of close range fighting, so I'd say the chance of surviving an attack by tanks isn't that little. Anyway, the probability of artillery being attacked by tanks is quite small in real life, since the tanks would have to smash through infantry and cavalry in order to get to them. They are more vulnerable to enemy airstrikes.
I spent a year driving these babies in the Artillery Regiment in Norway, and I have to say they are quite effective when it comes to destroying stuff. The M109 is quite old though, manufactured in the late 60s, so there ought to be an upgrade of it by now I think the cannon part is made in Germany and the engine is American.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I said that MOST artillery is moved by other vehicles, and also, I am talking about the Iraqi and Americans Tanks, not norwegian artillery.

You said: "...Since the tanks would have to smash through infantry and cavalry in order to get them..." (meaning artillery), in case you didn't know, American artillery groups are Cavalry, my brother was in the 3rd Cavalry Group/Division, and he was artillery.

And I realize that an armored tank division reaching within a few yards of an artillery placement is slim, but if there was nothing imbetween them, see ya later artillery.

The American 155mm and 203mm howitzers are NOT close range artillery, but they are strictly bombardment equipment, though your norwegian artillery may be...the American howitzers are not close range fighting units.

[Eternal]

... Actually I think your brother served in a unit within the Cavalry division, but the Cavalry division itself was probably a armoured division...

But still most IFV could probably stand a fair chance against modern tanks, not necessarily because of their puny cannons, but rather the AT missiles they often carry. (Except often the missiles are shaped charge and our tanks usually have Chobham armor)

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Originally posted by Eternal
... Actually I think your brother served in a unit within the Cavalry division, but the Cavalry division itself was probably a armoured division...

Do you even know what an armoured division is?

Most people believe an armored division just means tanks, but that is NOT true at all. Though at times armored divisions can consist mostly of tanks, they generally contain several different units, including cavalry, tank, infantry, and air support. "Armor" just means protection, so if you have an armored helicopter, it means that that chopper has reinforced plating, to PROTECT it, same way with tanks, infantry, and most other stuff.

THere can be lots of different "armored" divisions, there can be armored infantry, armored tanks, or whatever, please be specific.

[Eddin]

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that infantry has a good chance of fighting against Tanks (saving private ryan style), mainly because you should see riflemen as huge units of infantry (it's not just one man), and armours as a small mobile armoured attack force, with the purpose of penetrating fast and cutting off supplies and communications BEHIND the enemy (infantry) front. Their keyword is their speed, not their huge guns. That only applies when fighting other tanks, in which case a tank can be horribly outclassed (Tiger-Churchill style). In fact (if I'm correct) a tank totally sux against larger amounts of infantry when trying to engage in direct combat. It is their ability to move fast and far that gets them somewhere. When fighting in a city, your tanks are as good as dead. You use infantry for those purposes.

Artillery is a different story entirely, and I won't discuss that

[Eternal]

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Do you even know what an armoured division is?

Most people believe an armored division just means tanks, but that is NOT true at all. Though at times armored divisions can consist mostly of tanks, they generally contain several different units, including cavalry, tank, infantry, and air support. "Armor" just means protection, so if you have an armored helicopter, it means that that chopper has reinforced plating, to PROTECT it, same way with tanks, infantry, and most other stuff.

THere can be lots of different "armored" divisions, there can be armored infantry, armored tanks, or whatever, please be specific.

And like I freakin' said, your brother's battery is no doubt in an armored, or maybe mechanized, "Cavalry" division. Any stupid army that just calls artillery "Cavalry" ("Move that 155mm Cavalry over to that ridge!") is an army I will see destroyed by my legions of the undead!

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

My brother served in the 3rd cav unit, 58th armored cav division.

Let me lay this out plain and clear:

(these being the statistics of armored cavalry division)

Main Body - 50-80% of the division being artillery, and support artillery, most of which are long range bombardment howitzers, which usually have 155 - 203mm guns, the rest of the artillery is either self propelled 120mm or 155mm, or short range, and smaller.

First Support - then, part of the support group, there would be several infantry regiments.

Second Support - After the infantry, then one or two battalions of armored tanks.

Third Support - the division would only have a third support group if it was specialized, and if it was, then it would usually have air cover/support by mostly helicopters (since it was american, the helicopters would be Longbows and Blackhawks most likely).

I think that is pretty plain and simple to understand.

All I was trying to say was that if a group of say...100 tanks, WITHOUT any support, attacked a group of 100 155mm long range howitzers, which had no support, the tanks would win, for the following reasons:

1. Tanks are fast, and can fire while moving, while artillery must stop and fire.
2. THe modern U.S. tanks have heavy armor, and can usually deflect any shrapnel, IF moving fast enough. (but not a direct hit)
3. Tanks can load and fire within a few seconds, while artillery takes longer.
4. tanks are MUCH more accurate then the big 155's.
5. the tanks would not be bunched up, and would be moving in all directions to give the enemy a hard time aiming, while 80% of the big artillery pieces are stationary.

[Eternal]

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
My All I was trying to say was that if a group of say...100 tanks, WITHOUT any support, attacked a group of 100 155mm long range howitzers, which had no support, the tanks would win, for the following reasons:

1. Tanks are fast, and can fire while moving, while artillery must stop and fire.
2. THe modern U.S. tanks have heavy armor, and can usually deflect any shrapnel, IF moving fast enough. (but not a direct hit)
3. Tanks can load and fire within a few seconds, while artillery takes longer.
4. tanks are MUCH more accurate then the big 155's.
5. the tanks would not be bunched up, and would be moving in all directions to give the enemy a hard time aiming, while 80% of the big artillery pieces are stationary.

No one can argue with this, of course. Of course, it depends on the range at which the engagement begins. If the tanks come out below the Arty's minimum range, it's already a rout. However, if they have the space the Artillery shot some Cluster Munistions in the way of the tanks they could cause some serious damage.

[1]

Ahhh yes, but the US has just unveiled a new type of artillery. Its called "The Crusader" and it can fire I *think* every ten seconds WHILE speeding along at 60 mph!!! That's insane! Not only that, but it will fire multiple rounds at one target, at different angles, to have them all come down *at once* in the same place!

Originally posted by 1
Ahhh yes, but the US has just unveiled a new type of artillery. Its called "The Crusader" and it can fire I *think* every ten seconds WHILE speeding along at 60 mph!!! That's insane! Not only that, but it will fire multiple rounds at one target, at different angles, to have them all come down *at once* in the same place!

I will look that one up. I have two new book on Tanks and Artillery. No picture , just lots of facts.

[MORON]

Forgive me, but....are you stupid?

Damn, MTG, GP, Lancer anyone.... HELP

My Dad has seen an M1 Abrams get blown to bits by those crappy Iraqi tanks, which are about equivelant to a WWII Sherman with his own eyes, but of course that was 10 years ago, now the Iraqi's have finally updated their equipment in the last 5 or so years. I have seen a picture of the golf war, my dad was standing on one of our M1's...its turret had been blown away by an Iraqi M3, which is almost as crappy as our old M4's. I know what I am talking about.

YOU MORON (though I'm one too, but your are stupidier.)
1. No M1 have been knocked out by Iraqi Tanks. Only 2 M1 crews was KIA in the gulf and its because of their own stupidlity.
(M2,M3 have been knocked out, but they are not M1)

2. Iraqi had T-64 and T-72 russian tanks, no M3.

3. Iraqi T-64 and T-72 had 105mm guns, which is far more powerful than that of M4's standard 75mm. (with the exception of 105mm supersherman's used by the isrealis in 67)

You also have to remember, there were 3 types of shermans, 1. M5 (the oldest and weakest), 2. M4, and then during the fifties they had some M3's, which were a bit stronger then the ones we used in WWII.

..... WTF are you talking about?????

[MORON]

double post

[whosurdaddy]

You are absolutely correct, MORON. The only reason i bothered to actually register at apolyton and post my first message (I have been reading the boards for a LONG time) is after seeing the asenine comments of that Diablo fellow. He has not a single clue as to what he is talking about. When he started saying that the M4 came in varieties known as the M3 and M5 (M3 is actually an entirely different type of tank known as the Grant, with it's main turret located in its hull, not in the turret ... the M5 is also something entirely different), i couldn't help but laugh. On top of it is the fact that no Iraqi tank ever destroyed an M1 Abrams in the gulf war (as u pointed out), and that he had no clue what kind of tanks the Iraqis even used (as u also pointed out). Diablo is so wrong about his information, it is absurd, yet he has the nerve to over and over state how he thinks his information is 100% true. Give me a break. Let me just say Diablo, you would make an excellent used car salesman.

[TechWins]

the asenine comments of that Diablo fellow

Maybe Krazyhorse was right when he was talking bad about Diablo awhile back.

Originally posted by MORON
2. Iraqi had T-64 and T-72 Russian tanks, no M3.

And they also had a few T-80. The Marine ran into the Republican Guard at the Kuwaiti Air Port with their T-80 and with our old M-60A3 had a feel day with the Iraqi. American no looses, Iraqi, all tanks destroyed or put out of action.

3. Iraqi T-64 and T-72 had 105mm guns, which is far more powerful than that of M4's standard 75mm. (With the exception of 105mm super Sherman’s used by the Israelis in 67)

The M-3 was two tanks. One called the "Lee" and the other called the "Grant".
The Lee had a machine gun turret on top of the 37 mm turret. And of course the 75 mm gun located on the right side of the Hull. The Grant just had the 37 mm gun turret w/o the machine gun turret. It still had the 75 mm on the right side of the hull.

The M-4 had several versions.
M-4 July 1942 (Late production with cast upper front hull). 6,748 built. Welded hull. Early vehicles had three-piece bolted nose and narrow M34 gun mount: very late vehicles had combination cast/rolled hull front.
M-4A1 Feb. 1942 As for M4, but with a cast hull. First model into full production. M2 75 mm gun and counterweights, twin fixed machineguns in hull front (later eliminated and M3 75 mm introduced). Nose altered from three-piece bolted to one-piece cast. M34A1 gun mount and sand shields added later. 6,281 built.
M-4A2 April 1942 As for M4 but never had cast/rolle hull. General Motors 6046 diesels due to shortage of petrol engines. 8,053 built.
M-4A3 May 1942 Welded hull and one-piece cast nose: 500 hp Ford GAA V-8 petrol engine. Most advanced of series with 75 mm gun. 1,609 built.
M-4A4 July 1942 Welded hull and three-piece bolted nose. Chrysler A 57 Multibank 370 hp petrol engine, requiring hull to be lengthened to 19ft 10 1/2in, but increasing speeds to 25 mph. 7,499 built.
M-4A6 Oct. 1943 Final basic model with M4A4 hull and chassis and 450 hp RD-1820 Caterpillar radial diesel engine Cast/rolled front. 75 built.
M-4(105) Feb. 1944 Mounted the close-support 105 mm Howitzer M4 in an M52 mount in the turret. 1,641 built.
M-4A1(76)W Jan. 1944 3,426 built. The "W" stands for Wet Stowage.
M-4A2(76)W May 1944 2,915 built.
M-4A3(75)W Feb 1944 3,071 built.
M-4A3(76)W March 1944 4,542 built.
M-4A3(105) May 1944 3,039 built. CS Howitzer for m4(105 MM)
M-4A3E2 June 1944 254 built. Assault Tank. Heavily armored version (thicker Armour put weight up to 84,000 lb), including a more heavily armounred turret, seven inches on gun shield. Tracks has permanent grousers fitted to improve the ride. Nicknamed "Jumbo"
M-4A1E8(76) where given to French forces
M-4 Firefly British version with 17 pdr gun.
M-4A43E8 (105 mm Howitzer) USMC This tank saw action in Korea.
M-51 (Israel), which was a modified version of the M4A3E8, designed to take the new French 105 mm gun.

M-5/M-5A1 there was a light tank call the M-5 which carry a 37 mm gun.

Russian Tanks
T-90 Under development now
T-80 1983 125 mm gun
T-72 1971 125 mm gun
T-64 1966 125 mm gun
T-62 1961 115 mm gun
T-54/55 1947 100 mm gun T-55 was export model

[TechWins]

"Maybe Krazyhorse was right when he was talking bad about Diablo awhile back." by me

I'm not saying Krazyhorse is right though but by the way everybody seems to disagree with Diablo Krazyhorse just might be right. I had to clarify that.

[LaRusso]

ohmygod

what were all those posts for?
my head spins.....

and my knees tremble while reading stats of mighty american armored divisions.

by the way, iraqis and other arab soldiers have a nasty habbit of opening their hatches and running away from their tanks when they spot enemy vehicle on the horizon. that is how israelis got so many mint russian tanks and refitted them after 67 and 73.

one more thing, battle of the bulge was won not because american infantry proved it superiority agains german armor, but because the

1) weather got better so usaf could fly again
2) germans ran out of gas
3) chruchill pressed russians to begin their offensive earlier and eastern front collapsed

whosyourdaddy - i know the feeling - i read these posts for a long time and decided to register when i could not take some of the bull anymore

Originally posted by LaRusso
ohmygod
by the way, Iraqi and other Arab soldiers have a nasty habit of opening their hatches and running away from their tanks when they spot enemy vehicle on the horizon

And remember that bunch of Iraqis that was capture by the NBC camera crew. The camera operator was told to guard the Iraqis with his camera.

one more thing, battle of the bulge was won not because American infantry proved it superiority against German armor, but because the

1) weather got better so USAF could fly again
2) Germans ran out of gas
3) Churchill pressed Russians to begin their offensive earlier and eastern front collapsed

You forgot one. George S. Patton and his 3rd Army show up and started to attack the moment they saw Germans.