Tanks in the jungle

[egslim]

Summary: I found my most effective units for jungle-combat were armoured divisions.

Playing as UK (with I.C.E., but I think it works similarly in vanilla), in december 1941 Japan with its Nationalist China-puppet DoW'ed me. I had to evacuate Malacca, and got pushed back to Calcutta.

At this point I had four types of divisions in use:
Infantry: 3x Inf. I had not planned to deploy these, but the situation became quite desperate for a while and I had to quickly move them in.

Mountaineer: 2x Mtn, 2x Eng, 1x Alpine Art. These were the divisions I had originally intended to use, but I hadn't built enough. With the terrain a combination of mountains, jungle and rivers I figured this setup would have good combat-efficiency everywhere.

Mechanized: 2x Mech, 2x Eng, 1x SP Art
Armoured: 2x Arm, 1x Eng, 2x SP Art
I intended to use these solely for the European theatre, but had to move a number of them to India quickly.

After heavy fighting, a landing in Malacca and two major envelopments I managed to retake the whole of Birma, Siam and Vietnam.
But what really surprised me was how well the mechanized and armoured divisions performed. They proved significantly superior to the Mountaineers in the jungle and mountains of South-East Asia, even though they shouldn't.

The Mountaineers do have significantly higher combat efficiency, but the Mechanized/Armoured divisions have approximately 50% higher stats. And with the Combined Arms and other bonusses their own combat efficiency is over 100% by day.
Hardness also works in their advantage. The Mountaineer divisions burn manpower, the Armoured don't. Even if Mountaineers fight more effectively at first due to higher combat efficiency, they won't after 25% losses.
And tanks are faster, which makes it easy to finish of retreating enemy units. 9kmph against 3kmph, which I think outweighs the movement efficiency.

The Mountaineers are cheaper, but as UK I have time to build an army, and manpower is the main limiting factor. So armoured divisions simply make more sense for jungle-combat, which is about the opposite of how it should be.

I'm not sure about the solution. Actually, I'm not sure there should even be a solution while Nationalist China is defeated by Japan pre-war every time. But realistically tanks should not be this effective in South-East Asia.

 

[Saltspring]

Why the armor was very effective was the units you were likely encountering had low hard attacks as they are likely infantry division, which means the damage they do to your hard units is reduced significantly.

 

[blue emu]

... which means the damage they do to your hard units is reduced significantly.

... also, hard units do greater ORG damage to soft units.

From LUAdefines:

LAND_COMBAT_ORG_DICE_SIZE = 3,
LAND_COMBAT_STR_DICE_SIZE = 2,
LAND_COMBAT_STR_ARMOR_ON_SOFT_DICE_SIZE = 2,
LAND_COMBAT_ORG_ARMOR_ON_SOFT_DICE_SIZE = 5,

 

[egslim]

Yeah, I figured the main advantage was because of hardness. Forgot about the greater ORG damage to soft units, though - that must have more than compensated for the reduction in combat efficiency.

The point remains, tanks should not beat mountaineers in that kind of terrain. The mountaineers should perform vastly superior.

 

[Raptor83]

Yeah, I figured the main advantage was because of hardness. Forgot about the greater ORG damage to soft units, though - that must have more than compensated for the reduction in combat efficiency.

The point remains, tanks should not beat mountaineers in that kind of terrain. The mountaineers should perform vastly superior.

IRL that depends on equipment, tactics, air suport etc. - if that infantry dont have sufficent antitank weapons they would be unable to stop those tanks.

 

[Mini$mith]

IRL that depends on equipment, tactics, air suport etc. - if that infantry dont have sufficent antitank weapons they would be unable to stop those tanks.

Don't know about Asia, but in my game as Norway, vast German tank armies attacked over mountains with 3 in infra. Should not be possible to have more than 1 single tank in combat width, but they kept on coming at great speed. I don't deem that very realistic, as the terrain in Northern Norway at that time could in no way support an armoured assault. Even for normal infantry it was hell.
The very few tanks the Germans did bring to the campaign were destroyed by the poor roads and terrain, and left at the roadside. In such terrain, booby traps and roadblocks for tanks would also be easy to improvise.
A single grenade down the hatch of a tank is enough to take out the entire crew, and when picturing the narrow mountain roads, I can easily see an ambush taking place
But yes, if the mountaineers has no AT weapons, then they have a problem. But even with only level 2 techs, they should be able to stop the tanks trying to climb the mountainsides.

 

[egslim]

IRL that depends on equipment, tactics, air suport etc. - if that infantry dont have sufficent antitank weapons they would be unable to stop those tanks.

In the jungle/mountains?

We're talking about terrain where IRL the troops were supplied by mules and air transport, because motor vehicles often couldn't even get through.

Tanks are vulnerable to close infantry attacks, especially when they can't move. You don't need advanced antitank weapons for that, just some improvised explosives that stick to the side. They can offer valuable infantry support, but an armoured division should suck.

 

[egslim]

A single grenade down the hatch of a tank is enough to take out the entire crew, and when picturing the narrow mountain roads, I can easily see an ambush taking place
But yes, if the mountaineers has no AT weapons, then they have a problem. But even with only level 2 techs, they should be able to stop the tanks trying to climb the mountainsides.

Exactly, but everyone has handgrenades. And some light artillery shooting from an elevated position can easily pierce the roof of a tank.

In reality most of the fighting would be done by the infantry. When the infantry encounters a strongpoint, they might request a tank to a position from where it can blow the point away.

An armoured division has some infantry, but it advances with its tanks. And that's a recipe for ambush in mountainous terrain.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

The problem with tanks in rugged terrain is the fact that the CA bonus pretty much negates any terrain penalty. The only problematic situation that may arise is when you receive both a terrain AND river penalty. Apart from that, combined arms divisions can pretty much operate anywhere.

If you prefer a more "realistic" approach, it is best to modifiy terrain penalties. For example with -90% for tanks in jungle and mountains, a CA tank division will have roughly 50% combat power in jungle terrain. If you add a defence bonus for the defender (e.g. +50% for INF in jungle), combat results will become more realistic and make terrain much more important.

 

[Marcus]

You wouldn't even need to destroy the tank, just a mobility kill (hit something that stops the tank from moving, like its tracks) would be enough, good luck on getting a repair crew and spare parts to a mule trail in the Central Combodian Highlands.

 

[egslim]

The problem with tanks in rugged terrain is the fact that the CA bonus pretty much negates any terrain penalty. The only problematic situation that may arise is when you receive both a terrain AND river penalty. Apart from that, combined arms divisions can pretty much operate anywhere.

If you prefer a more "realistic" approach, it is best to modifiy terrain penalties. For example with -90% for tanks in jungle and mountains, a CA tank division will have roughly 50% combat power in jungle terrain. If you add a defence bonus for the defender (e.g. +50% for INF in jungle), combat results will become more realistic and make terrain much more important.

Yeah, I think something like that is needed.

 

[ROMMEL_HSQ]

Some are forgetting that just because it is tank division, it doesn't mean that they don't have infantry support.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Some are forgetting that just because it is tank division, it doesn't mean that they don't have infantry support.

Of course they have INF support, but the major combat power of a tank division comes from it's tanks, since the actual combat tactics will focus around them.

And in fact, this is rather easy to model in HoI3: the more support brigades (INF, MOT, etc.) you add to your division, the more additonal support units you have for your tanks. If they have enough support, they are actually a CA division. And terrain penalties are derived directly from the division as a whole, so an ARM-ARM-ARM-INF division will have higher penalties as an ARM-ARM-INF-INF division.

 

[jequirity]

For central Burma it should be realistic that a combined arms divison dominates infantry-centric divisions as this was indeed the case in 1945. XIV Army led by Slim conducted a series of successful mechanized attacks around Meiktila due to the fact that central Burma is composed mostly of plains rather than thick jungle. The Japanese could not find an effective counter to the mechanized approach and were defeated soundly.

Whilst i'd argue that an armoured division consisting purely of tank brigades should suffer heavy penalties at the hands of infantry divisions, as long as there is a good balance between armour, infantry and engineers then balanced armoured divisions should be expected to be able to dominate in the jungle. Perhaps for jungle terrain the combined arms bonus should take into account engineers as being a completely seperate requisite parameter when calculating whether or not the CA bonus applies.

In mountainous terrain however, i'd wager that infantry divisions should prove more powerful than armoured divisions taking into account penalties etc.

 

[Oof]

Its viable and historically accurate as jequirity posted. Large armoured formations will have major in game supplies issues though. Two examples (SF2.04d):

Playing as Germany i had no choice but to use one armoured corps in an attack on the Caucacus. The corps comprised 2 mot div (3 reg mot) and 2 armoured div (2 arm reg + 1 mot reg) and a corps hq. As soon as they came to difficult terrain like mountains with bad roads, they couldnt move into enemy territory for an attack. The only way to get them moving again was air supply.

Playing as the UK i used and armoured corps and some inf corps to attack the Italians in North Africa. I had already upgraded my roads to the border in Egypt and at first the attack went well. After taking Benghazi I started to run into trouble.
Most of the roads in that area have are lvl 2 or 3. But after heavy battles some of those roads were destroyed. My offensive came to a grinding halt. Even without the roads I would have gotten into trouble sooner or later. The road system just cant supply all the troops at once while the distance to Alexandria gets bigger and bigger.

Both examples are in different kinds of terrain but historically accurate, just like the attack in Birma. And in all cases, in game and historically, supply was the main concern of commanders.

 

[egslim]

For central Burma it should be realistic that a combined arms divison dominates infantry-centric divisions as this was indeed the case in 1945. XIV Army led by Slim conducted a series of successful mechanized attacks around Meiktila due to the fact that central Burma is composed mostly of plains rather than thick jungle. The Japanese could not find an effective counter to the mechanized approach and were defeated soundly.

Bolding mine. On my map central Burma consists mainly of jungle, surrounded by mountains. And an urban province in the middle.

My point is not to argue about the accuracy of province-terrain. My point is in jungle/mountainous terrain armoured divisions should suck. Tanks are useful for infantry-support, but useless as independent armoured formations in the jungle. And that's what an armoured division represents. (2Arm, 1 Eng, 2 SP Art)

In mountainous terrain however, i'd wager that infantry divisions should prove more powerful than armoured divisions taking into account penalties etc.

You lose that wager. Realistically you're right, in-game you're wrong.
The combination of CA and a lvl4+ leader gives more than enough combat efficiency, especially with LAND_COMBAT_ORG_ARMOR_ON_SOFT_DICE_SIZE = 5.

I even crossed rivers in mountainous terrain with armoured formations when they could attack from multiple directions, air support was not a requirement. My mountaineers got chewed up in such attacks, but the tanks just kept going.

 

[jequirity]

Bolding mine. On my map central Burma consists mainly of jungle, surrounded by mountains. And an urban province in the middle.

On my map central burma is covered with jungle rather than plains too which probably represents a case for a more accurate map. In the meantime i'm happy for tank-heavy armoured divisions to romp around this area of jungle undaunted. I'm less happy when they romp around cambodia or any other area of the map which are actually mountainous or jungle in real life.

My point is not to argue about the accuracy of province-terrain. My point is in jungle/mountainous terrain armoured divisions should suck. Tanks are useful for infantry-support, but useless as independent armoured formations in the jungle. And that's what an armoured division represents. (2Arm, 1 Eng, 2 SP Art)

From the second half of 1944 in RL in the British army at least, most of the armoured divisions (Composed of roughly 1 infantry brigade, 1 armoured brigade and supporting artillery and engineer components) would split themselves into flexible battle groups whereby the armoured brigades were essentially mixed with the infantry brigade to form 2 or more battlegroups. This allowed for greater armour-infantry cooperation which was essential for operating in thick terrain. The armoured brigades used from Imphal to Rangoon were always employed alongside infantry units because as you pointed out, tanks are best used for infantry support in jungle conditions. I'd have no hesitations in assuming my armoured divisions were operating in such a manner in HOI3.

I would agree though that armoured divisions in game that lack infantry support should suffer at the hands of infantry divisions but I think that a balanced armoured division or formation should prove superior to an infantry division even in jungle terrain.

As I mentioned in my previous post what i'd like to see would be an increase in complexity when calculating the CA requirements. I'd like to see engineers becoming a requirement for CA for formations operating in jungle conditions.

You lose that wager. Realistically you're right, in-game you're wrong.

I should have specified that I was referring to real life but you're quite correct that if I was specifying an in-game scenario then I would lose that wager!

Regarding mountainous terrain again, I agree that there should be more penalties for formations containing armour.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Regarding terrain: I still think it would have been better to use the EU3 terrain system.
In EU3 each (or: almost every) province consists of a mix of certain terrain features. Once combat commences, the game will pick the actual combat terrain depending on the % distribution on the map.
So if you fight in a province with 50% plains, 30% woods and 20% marshes, you have an equal chance for these terrains to become the battleground.

Since battles are a bit more dynamic in the HoI3 era, the system could have been altered to re-roll the terrain check every 24 hours or so (and maybe give certain terrain types like cities an increased chance to appear). I mean - sure, it will increase CPU load a bit, but the benefits would be great. It would make combat a bit less predictable and add a lot more immersion. Oh and I can already see all the AAR before my eyes...

"The german tanks broke through the defence line in the woods and chased the retreating russians over the open plains until they could finally regroup in the city outskirts."
*drools*

 

[Marcus]

Regarding terrain: I still think it would have been better to use the EU3 terrain system.
In EU3 each (or: almost every) province consists of a mix of certain terrain features. Once combat commences, the game will pick the actual combat terrain depending on the % distribution on the map.
So if you fight in a province with 50% plains, 30% woods and 20% marshes, you have an equal chance for these terrains to become the battleground.

Since battles are a bit more dynamic in the HoI3 era, the system could have been altered to re-roll the terrain check every 24 hours or so (and maybe give certain terrain types like cities an increased chance to appear). I mean - sure, it will increase CPU load a bit, but the benefits would be great. It would make combat a bit less predictable and add a lot more immersion. Oh and I can already see all the AAR before my eyes...

"The german tanks broke through the defence line in the woods and chased the retreating russians over the open plains until they could finally regroup in the city outskirts."
*drools*

This idea is so good I want to marry it.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

I used to play Steel Panthers a while ago. When I played Japanese, the most fearsome enemy was M3 Lee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee#Pacific_and_China-Burma-India_Theaters

Only Japanese engineers in ambushes could do any real damage to them.

M3 Lee was infantry support tank. There were about 1700 of them in the CBI theater. They actually did very well in steep hillsides and fought until the end of the war.