• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tunisia '43 Hard Attack Value for Infantry Bug ?
07-18-2019, 05:28 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-18-2019, 06:17 PM by wiggum.)
#1
Tunisia '43 Hard Attack Value for Infantry Bug ?
Hi !

In Tunisia '43 many german infantry units (foot/mot) have a Hard Attack Value of 3 at range 1 or even 5 at range 1.
Is this how it is supposed to be ? What kind of weapons did a ordinary german infantry company have in Tunisia in 1943 that allow them a hard attack range of 1 ?

Im not talking about armoured infantry which may had some sdkfz with a AT gun in each company but just plain foot infantry or fallschirmjäger that get a Hard Attack Rating of 3 or 5 at 1 hex range.

Is this an error ?

For example a M3 Stuart company with 7 tanks gets a hard attack value of 4/1 while a german "March" Company (foot) has a hard attack value of 5/1. So should i assume that 7 M3 tanks are worse at hard attack then a ordinary german (low quality C rating) "March" infantry company ?

Another example: The Italian Semovente L40 campany, basically 9 mobile 47 mm AT guns have a Hard Attack rating of 4/1...again..a ordinary german foot Infantry Company get 5/1 !! Something wrong here or not ?

Maybe im wrong but what weapons are these high number supposed to represent ?
Quote this message in a reply
07-19-2019, 01:01 AM,
#2
RE: Tunisia '43 Hard Attack Value for Infantry Bug ?
Or just as a general question. What should the 1 Hex Hard Attack range for Infantry in the 43-45 games represent ? I thin not Bazookas and Panzerfaust with a effective range of 50-80m at max.

I would understand infantry battalions having this rating since they may have had an organic AT platoon. But a Infantry Company ? Looking at OOBs from that time i cant see a Infantry Company with organic AT weapons.
Quote this message in a reply
07-19-2019, 01:08 PM,
#3
RE: Tunisia '43 Hard Attack Value for Infantry Bug ?
So each battalion was made up of 3 infantry companies and 1 heavy weapons company. The heavy weapons company is not included in the OOB, instead its strength is spread across the companies in the battalion.

Each HW company would have had 6 75mm AT guns at full strength, or 2 per company. I imagine that represents the 5/1 HA value. Whether that rating is consistent with other ratings I can't say, but I would expect a much higher rating than the Stuart or Italian tanks.

As to the question about 43-45 in general, it would have to depend on how the OOB was structured, but if the German HW company was split up in the OOB to the companies involved, it would include the AT guns.
[Image: exercise.png]
Quote this message in a reply
07-19-2019, 08:09 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-19-2019, 08:17 PM by wiggum.)
#4
RE: Tunisia '43 Hard Attack Value for Infantry Bug ?
What OOB are you using for the "Each HW company would have had 6 75mm AT guns" ?

In most german battalions the HW company did have mostly Infantry guns (bad at anti tank and short range at that), mortars and HMGs.

If the Heavy Weapons Company was split up i think that would amount to nothing since a Heavy Weapons Company is not an Anti Tank company but also includes mortars and HMG's and Infantry guns.

So at most we are talking about one 3.7cm PaK 36 per company since the heavy stuff (75mm AT guns) was always concentrated in the Anti Tank gun battalion and its companys. which should not give them a 5 Hard Attack at range 1 when 9 Semovente L40 with 9 47 mm AT guns get a 4 hard attack at range 1.
Quote this message in a reply
07-19-2019, 08:25 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-19-2019, 08:30 PM by All_American.)
#5
RE: Tunisia '43 Hard Attack Value for Infantry Bug ?
As stated above, I've always considered the hard attack values to include both regimental and battalion level AT guns.

Marsch units in Tunisia were mostly depot units in re-training and re-equipping after seeing combat and were enroute to their field units, but they were flown desperately into Tunisia to plug the gaps.

Although, many of them were still veterans, and were equipped with several 75mm and captured 6pdr/2pdr AT guns whenever available (around 10 per regiment but this figure varied).

Therefore you can conclude that hard attack value includes those assets as well.

A German infantry battalion, at least in theory, should be able to penetrate armor more easily than Stuarts with their puny 37mms.

What they are lacking in comparison is mobility, in which the Stuarts are great.

Edit: I agree on your point about the Semovente. It was a potent vehicle and were successfully employed as a SP AT. Probably should have a higher value.
Quote this message in a reply
07-19-2019, 08:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-19-2019, 08:40 PM by wiggum.)
#6
RE: Tunisia '43 Hard Attack Value for Infantry Bug ?
(07-19-2019, 08:25 PM)All_American Wrote: As stated above, I've always considered the hard attack values to include both regimental and battalion level AT guns.

Marsch units in Tunisia were mostly depot units in re-training and re-equipping after seeing combat and were enroute to their field units, but they were flown desperately into Tunisia to plug the gaps.

Although, many of them were still veterans, and were equipped with several 75mm and captured 6pdr/2pdr AT guns whenever available (around 10 per regiment but this figure varied).

Therefore you can conclude that hard attack value includes those assets as well.

A German infantry battalion, at least in theory, should be able to penetrate armor more easily than Stuarts with their puny 37mms.

What they are lacking in comparison is mobility, in which the Stuarts are great.

Edit: I agree on your point about the Semovente. It was a potent vehicle and were successfully employed as a SP AT. Probably should have a higher value.

But the regimental and battalion level AT guns, the AT battalions are modeled separately in the OOB as specific units with their own counters so these guns cant be included down to the individual Infantry company level i guess.

I have Osprey OOB Afrika Korps and are currently searching. Looks like a Schützen Company in late 42 had 3 "Anti-Tank Rifles" (2.8 cm sPzB 41) and 3 Pak 38 50mm AT guns. Did not expect this.

" 1942 brought many changes in infantry unit organization and firepower.
Firstly, ‘light’ weapons – in particular mortars, light anti-tank rifles and infantry
guns – were deemed unsuitable for North African warfare, either because their
lightweight projectiles were not capable of piercing enemy AFV armour or
because they had not much effect on the ground (sandy ground actually
reduced the effect of explosive shells). Secondly, infantry units were
reorganized to emphasize both their firepower and their anti-tank capabilities.
MG and schwere Kompanien were disbanded and absorbed into the new Schützen
– from late July Panzergrenadier – Kompanien
, four of which now formed a
battalion. The established weapon allowance of the new regiment was quite
impressive considering that their allocation of light MGs was now almost twice
that of the old Schützen Regiment, while the number of heavy MGs had only
been reduced by two. Also the new regiment possessed more mortars (39 rather
than 30, all heavy), and its anti-tank capabilities had been improved with its
39 PzB (mostly PzB 41) and 42 Pak 38."

Guess i was wrong and the game OOB is actually pretty correct.
Quote this message in a reply
07-20-2019, 09:12 AM,
#7
RE: Tunisia '43 Hard Attack Value for Infantry Bug ?
For the 1943 Infanterie Div AT guns at the regiment/bn level, one source I looked at was this: https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/...power.html.

It shows 12 75mm AT guns at the regt level, where there are 3 regts of 2 bns each. The one infanterie div in Tunisia that I looked at had that structure, I think? I was hurrying to maybe it was 2 regts of 3 bns? But still shows at least per OOB the Germans were getting even the bigger AT guns out to the regts fairly early in 1943. The divisional AT unit was separate, as in the game.
[Image: exercise.png]
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)