The Great Tank Debate
Thought I'd chime in at the height of my Sunday afternoon boredom. I'll leave the math to those that can reasonably well ...
An Inf division with 50-100 AT guns, towed by trucks, equals the AT value of a tank division with 200 mobile turreted AT guns, plus their additional equipment. It's B.S.
This was in another thread but relevant to the discussion at hand; I believe it to be a decent starting point.
It seems what is missing is a good analysis of the relationship between Soft/Hard Attack values and terrain and Ground Defense values during HoI combat. In the quote noted above, I suggest its assertion is partially correct. It is entirely dependent upon the situation in which the two units are employed.
In relatively open terrain, the 200 tanks ought to consistently prevail. The tanks have a tremendous edge in mobility; thus, they are able to concentrate firepower quickly and more effectively than towed AT guns. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the towed AT guns would be greatly diminished if the infantry were on the offensive for the reason noted above.
However, provide the infantry with some decent cover or the opportunity to dig-in and 50 well-handled AT guns pose a considerable obstacle to 200 tanks; 100 AT guns are an absolute nightmare!
Subsequently, the value of the towed AT gun to the infantry ought to vary with its use. If in favourable terrain and on the defensive, AT guns ought to considerably raise the HA values and marginally increase the SA values of infantry. On the offensive or in less favourable terrain, towed AT guns ought to provide a minimal increase in HA/SA values. For me, the problem is my lack of insight of the relationship between HA/SA values, GD and terrain in HoI. How is GD affected by HA/SA values? Or terrain? Is this relationship consistently reflected in HoI based upon available historical data?
As I see it, the cost or value of a specific unit ought to vary with the nature of its employment. In basic terms, tanks attacking dug-in infantry in a wooded area is terribly costly. It is equally costly for infantry to attack tanks in open terrain. Thus, depending on the circumstances, the
true value of a unit may be understated or overstated in HoI game terms (as in actual combat). However, in relative terms, it will always be costlier for tanks to operate. If we remove all the logistical & operational support staff, certainly it is much cheaper to fill the ranks of an infantry division than a tank division. On the basis of this alone, I propose it ought to be considerably more expensive in game terms to maintain tank forces than infantry forces.
Incidentally, this notion appears to be consistent with the evolution of warfare in the Second World War. Initially, the tank was truly the "Queen" of the battlefield. As the war progressed, the standard tank became increasingly vulnerable to infantry AT weapons and air attacks. Near the end of the war, air superiority was as much, if not greater, concern than tank superiority. Modern warfare is predicated upon the concept of gaining and/or maintaining air superiority. Consequently, in HoI game terms the
true value of tanks ought diminish in direct relationship to enemy air and AT advancements as the war progresses.
My two bits, for what it's worth ...
