Infantry Support Tanks

[SaydaNeen]

I think there should be a seperate tech tree for the infantry support vehicles, in that era infantry tanks were quite different from heavy tanks. You shouldnt have to go almost all the way to the bottom of the tank tech tree to get your infantry support tanks. The Char B1 was in service in 1936.​

 

[adil3tr]

Isn't that just self propelled artillery?

 

[Dalnar]

Aren't all early tanks basically Infantry support tanks ? Or are any tanks before 1936 meant to deal specally with enemy armor ?

 

[Mannstien]

If the French had coordinated their attacks with infantry and put operable radios in the Char B1 they could have cut the Germans off during the push after they past Sedan. The 88 was the only thing that could pen them from the front at least, it was slow and had to be fueled often as it didn't have great range but the Germans didn't have a comparable tank at that time in any numbers to deal with them. Inside the Nazi War Machine is a good book to read with detailed information on the the attack on France in 1940, no propaganda despite the title.

 

[Consumerist]

Britian has a split between cruiser tanks and infantry tanks in its tech tree so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar deal with france.

 

[aruon]

the majority of early war tanks were infantry support. about half of the panzer 3s and 4s had a low velocity stubby barrel. there were some anti-tank (or at least non-infantry support) tanks but they were few and mostly russian.
sometimes with british tanks it's hard to really say, since infantry tanks were mostly just heavily armored beasts.
american tanks (M2, M3 Lee/Grant) until the M4 sherman were all support and just sucked badly.
japanese tanks were pure infantry support since the chinese tanks were so comically outdated you couldn't laugh anymore.

 

[mursolini]

If the French had coordinated their attacks with infantry and put operable radios in the Char B1 they could have cut the Germans off during the push after they past Sedan. The 88 was the only thing that could pen them from the front at least, it was slow and had to be fueled often as it didn't have great range but the Germans didn't have a comparable tank at that time in any numbers to deal with them. Inside the Nazi War Machine is a good book to read with detailed information on the the attack on France in 1940, no propaganda despite the title.

Not this again. Every German division had 105 and 150 mm guns that would deal with any ww2 tank. Then tanks can be flanked, which is the prefered way of dealing with them, then infantry support can be cut, and then tanks are easy to deal with.

 

[Sic Domine]

There are no tanks that are built for use against tanks. Any tanks prime use is against infantry first and foremost. It's why tanks have HE rounds and machine guns.

The fact that some tanks had Cannons that would penetrate tanks is just a bonus. That's just to boost their combat power against other things unlike infantry. That's also why some tanks had pintle mounted machine guns for defence against aircraft.


Besides, to the OP. You can create infantry support tanks by making a really slow tank with lots of armour. It's the vehicle designer that would do that.

 

[potski]

Britian has a split between cruiser tanks and infantry tanks in its tech tree so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar deal with france.

Everyone has the same tech tree. Only the model names are different. Though the split is light / heavy tanks, rather than how they are used.

 

[aruon]

There are no tanks that are built for use against tanks. Any tanks prime use is against infantry first and foremost. It's why tanks have HE rounds and machine guns.

The fact that some tanks had Cannons that would penetrate tanks is just a bonus. That's just to boost their combat power against other things unlike infantry. That's also why some tanks had pintle mounted machine guns for defence against aircraft.

if this was 1936, you'd be... well not everyone would've disagreed with you back then. but it's 2016 and what you said is so narrow minded you might as well as just dismissed the mere concept of tanks fighting tanks. you missed the trees for the forest entirely.

you do realize that there were many, MANY tanks made specifcally with countering some other tanks right? the middle models of stug and panzer 3/4 had actual turrets so they could take on the T-34 and even just try to hold against the KV-1. the entire M4 sherman family was developed so that the US actually had tanks capable of tank battles. the panthers and tigers were designed to outgun any other tank. even going into the cold war- the british FV 4004 Conway was planned, designed, and built purely in reaction to the soviet IS-3.

the only tanks which were never designed with the idea that they'd fight other armored behemoths were the original Mark I-IV tanks from WWI. and even then, the mark V had measures in place in the event of a captured tank being used against its creators. and even then, the A7V- designed to battle the british tanks.

 

[lwarmonger]

There are no tanks that are built for use against tanks. Any tanks prime use is against infantry first and foremost. It's why tanks have HE rounds and machine guns.

The fact that some tanks had Cannons that would penetrate tanks is just a bonus. That's just to boost their combat power against other things unlike infantry. That's also why some tanks had pintle mounted machine guns for defence against aircraft.


Besides, to the OP. You can create infantry support tanks by making a really slow tank with lots of armour. It's the vehicle designer that would do that.

Um... yeah. That isn't true at all. Especially towards the middle and end of WWII and into the Cold War.

 

[Nicolas I]

There are no tanks that are built for use against tanks...

You should really read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer

 

[rutger9]

Not this again. Every German division had 105 and 150 mm guns that would deal with any ww2 tank. Then tanks can be flanked, which is the prefered way of dealing with them, then infantry support can be cut, and then tanks are easy to deal with.

After all, as we all know artillery pieces were equipped and designed to be used for anti tank work, they were deployed on the frontline all ready to attack tanks with APCR rounds instead of say being deployed behind the main line to give fire support. ofcourse not that's what we got our pak37's for.

 

[Kovax]

Even as far back as WWI, tanks had already begun to specialize. The British "male" and "female" versions of its giant rhomboidal Mk.IV behemoths either mounted machineguns or small cannon as primary armament, the "female" to attack infantry and the "male" to fight enemy tanks. Saying that all WWII tanks were designed only for one or the other completely misses the point that most were intended to be multi-purpose, while a few were specialized at each of the roles. Many of them changed roles and functions as the war went on.

Examples:
The German Pz.III was intended to combat enemy armor. Its 37mm armor piercing cannon was best suited for that role, since the gun was too small in diameter to deliver effective HE rounds. The medium-length 50mm gun (L46? - ratio of length to diameter) was installed on the IIIH model when it became painfully obvious that the 37mm was inadequate against many of the French tanks, and the 50L60 quickly became the standard on models J-L after the first encounters with Soviet armor. Despite the large turret ring being designed to handle upgrades in firepower, anything heavier was beyond the limits of the engine and suspension, and the final models of PanzerKampfwagen III (M-N) were mostly built either with the same 75L24 as the original Panzer IV (the short 75mm weighed less than the long 50mm), or as flame-thrower tanks. In essence it went from a tank killer to the infantry support role.

The German PzKw.IV was intended to combat enemy infantry and fortifications. Its low-velocity 75mm howitzer was best suited for direct-fire of HE rounds, but not well suited for use against enemy armor. Later, HEAT rounds allowed it to fight against armor, and the short 75L24 gun was eventually replaced first by the L43, and then L48 medium velocity cannons, which retained most of the HE capability while giving it respectable armor piercing capability. It too lacked the horsepower and suspension to carry more weight, such as the heavier 75L70 high-velocity cannon as used on the Panther. The infantry support tank became the tank killer.

 

[Sic Domine]

You should really read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer

And here's the proof. A tank that is designed to fight enemy armour is a tank destroyer and not a tank.

 

[Nicolas I]

And here's the proof. A tank that is designed to fight enemy armour is a tank destroyer and not a tank.

So a tank is not a tank ? I'm not sure I follow your train of thought...

Your first said no tanks are built for use against tanks, now you say that a tank designed to fight enemy armour is not a tank. What is the difference between "built" and "designed" ?

What's next, a plane built (or designed if you prefer) to destroy tanks (JU-87, IL-2, YAK 9T/9K, Hurricane IID, Typhoon) is not a plane ?

Isn't that hair splitting ?

 

[SaydaNeen]

Britian has a split between cruiser tanks and infantry tanks in its tech tree so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar deal with france.

That would be accurate, hard to say though because if your France the char B1 is considered a heavy tank right? But then that would mean your heavy tank tree is already unlocked.. I guess they would just have to change around the tree so heavy would be 2nd but the next wouldn't be research set until 1940 or so.

 

[mursolini]

After all, as we all know artillery pieces were equipped and designed to be used for anti tank work, they were deployed on the frontline all ready to attack tanks with APCR rounds instead of say being deployed behind the main line to give fire support. ofcourse not that's what we got our pak37's for.

They were equiped with nesessary recticles yes, ammo vise, most anti-bunker shells did perfecly acceptable job, and even 150mm HE direct hit would often take out the tank of event Tiger class, not to mention early war tanks.

Artillery, was movable, if the division faced tanks it couldn't deal with, it would fall back to its heavier guns. Yes, that is not the ideal case, and it is preferable to have dedicated anti-tank guns, but as Germany demonstrated very well in all theaters in early war, and Allies and Soviets demonstrated late war, "superior" tanks is not that huge of an obstacle, and can be dealt pretty well, as long as the side has something going for it, better organisation and manuverability, air support, greater numbers, all allow to deal with "superior" enemy armor, without huge problems.

 

[Bronterre]

The French Char B would be a 1934 tech heavy tank (I believe the B1 was an improved version so a variant would work for this) not a hypothetical infantry tank as it doesn't match with most other infantry tanks and is more a lighter breakthrough tank in concept. It was slow, unreliable, fuel hungry, needed excessive maintenance and was ill suited to a war of maneuverer, when it was designed it was reasonable but not by the war. One on one especially in tight confines it was a beast, the problem is that it wasn't one on one most of the time, its also telling that most kills on Char Bs were mobility kills or just that it broke down/ran out of fuel and was destroyed to prevent capture.

A national focus which gives you a choice between the light-medium-heavy or the light-infantry-cruiser methods would be cool but the problem is that only the UK went pure light-infantry-cruiser in how it built tanks, most others were light-medium-heavy or some sort of hybrid or switched between the two so this wouldn't really work for that either. I think the current way while slightly annoying as tanks get lumped together or misclassified (its okay because its just flavour text in effect and everyone is in the same boat with stats and things) is fine, I'll just have to build my infantry tanks and cruiser tanks as variants.

 

[BrotherSurplice]

I think that the best way for HoI IV to mirror the difference between light-cruiser/cavalry-infantry and light-medium-heavy is simply to have light recon tanks be lights, cruiser or cavalry tanks to be mediums and heavy infantry tanks (e.g. Char B1s, Matildas, T-35s etc) to be heavies. This system wouldn't be perfect, as for one thing it leaves light infantry tanks (e.g. T-26s, R-35s etc) out, but I think it would be the most appropriate way to put the interwar tanks in their proper place in the tech tree.

It'd certainly be better than having the Matilda and Valentine as light tanks (yes I'm still super salty about that).

A national focus which gives you a choice between the light-medium-heavy or the light-infantry-cruiser methods would be cool but the problem is that only the UK went pure light-infantry-cruiser in how it built tanks, most others were light-medium-heavy or some sort of hybrid or switched between the two so this wouldn't really work for that either. I think the current way while slightly annoying as tanks get lumped together or misclassified (its okay because its just flavour text in effect and everyone is in the same boat with stats and things) is fine, I'll just have to build my infantry tanks and cruiser tanks as variants.

Not this again. Britain was not the only nation to designate its tanks light-cruiser/cavalry-infantry. The most obvious is the French, with their AMR light reconnaissance tanks, Somua S-35 cavalry tanks and Renault and Hotchkiss infantry tanks. Admittedly the boundary between infantry and heavy gets blurred with the Char B1, or the boundary between medium and cavalry with the S-35, but they were still clearly designed with the light-cavalry-infantry system in mind. The Soviets also followed this method for a while, with their BT series cavalry tanks, T-26 and T-35 infantry tanks and light tanks like the T-37 and T-38.