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]

Re: Tank and Artillery Combat

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]

Moron? Thats right!

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]

Re: Tank and Artillery Combat

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)