I just read a very interesting article in the latest issue of Armchair General on the Red Army Tankers or tankisti . I thought about how some of the facts regarding Soviet tanks in WWII could be incorporated into an Eastern Front expansion. I am posting these ideas to get input from other players and in the hopes that FFG will read this post and take into account some of this information to maybe incorporate it into an Eastern Front expansion.

According to the Armchair General article, the workhorse tank of the Russina military in WWI was the T-34. The article said that especially in the beginning stages of the war, most T-34s did not have radio communications, which caused the Russian attacks to be disjointed. Later in the war the Russians got radios for their upgraded T-34s from a Lend-Lease program from the United States. I was thinking that to reflect this in the rules, you could have a scenario specific rule that only allowed the Russians to move one or two tanks per turn to reflect their lack of radio communications in the early T-34s.

I also read something in this article that I found very interesting. It stated that tank-infantry cooperation was a hallmark of the Red Army. In essence, the Russians would use tankodesantniki or tank riders, where swarms of infantrymen would ride atop a T-34 into battle, and then dismount to fight. The article pointed out that this tactic was not exclusive to the Russian Army, but it was used very effectively by the Russians. I could see this tactic translating easily into Tide of Iron with an Operations Card that allowed a country to use this tactic. Basically, a tank could carry one or two infantry units (just like a truck or half-track). However, the infantry would not benefit from the vehicle's armor because the infantry are riding on the outside of the tank. Thus, if a tank took four hits, but its armor protected it against four hits, the tank would be unscathed. However, if four infantry were riding on the tank, they'd be blown away, leaving some nifty blood-spatter on the tank but leaving the tank virtually unharmed.

What do you think?

Oops, sorry for the multiple posts on the same topic. I thought my computer froze so i kept hitting the "Publish" button. I guess it published my post three times. Sorry. Anyone know how to delete the duplicates?

thats some nice info thank you for that

and no sorry i dont know how to delete a post

In the scenario-section there are some "experimental rules vol.1" wich provide exactly such rules as you proposed (tankriding, no radio), but worked out differently, as far as i remember...maybe you want to check them out...

anyway, i think ffg shouldnt get too much into detail with the rules, one of the big pros of toi is the - compared to other games - simple game system...so to my opinion the mentioned rules give too much "special traits" etc...wich does not mean i dislike the whole thing, imho its just a little too much...

Actually I love that idea for Russian operation cards! That is what the cards are for. I agree that there should not be an overhaul of -tank- rules, I think that Russian flavored opperation cards concerning communications and piggy backing on tanks is an exceptional idea.

That was my thought. There are already some operations cards with tank specific rules, like Elite Tank Crew or something. A card allowing guys to ride on tanks would use existing rules, but just make a card specific rule allowing infantry to ride on tanks. I guess if someone thought the rule over-complicated the game, then just don't use the card. Either way, I'm looking forward to an Eastern Front expansion. Hopefully after Normandy, we'll start hearing development plans for it by this summer.

Interceptor said:

This is true. If fact it was a serious problem for the Russian armour as tank commanders were often forced to communicate via signal flags forcing them to expose themselves to German sniper fire.

To mitigate this the russians tended to use their tanks in simple frontal attacks that saw them decimated by German antitank fire. It wasn't until well into Operation Barbarossa that the Russians upgraded the T-34 allowing them to deploy their tanks in a more flexible tactical role (typically moving on the flank of an attack). Once they'd figured this out it prompted Guderian to note in his diary, 'the Russians are learning'...

Interceptor said:

Well, i wouldn't call it their 'hallmark'. After the decimation of their divisions, and particularly their officer class in the early months of the German Barbarossa blitzkrieg, they adapted their tactics alongside the reconstitution of their forces.

Zukhov issued a standing order that there were to be no more infantry attacks without armour or air support, but most Axis and Allied doctrines also stated something similar, so...

Interceptor said:

Indeed. In fact the 'tank descant' tactic was developed and used as early as 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. Tank riding was common to many of the combatant armies in logisitcal movement (away from combat engagements).

Certainly the Americans and British infantry very rarely (if ever) rode tanks into battle, but this had more to do with the tendency of the Sherman to explode readily. The Sherman was nicknamed the 'Ronson' by the allies (after a famous cigarette light of the time; Ronson - it lights first time every time ). The Germans called it the 'Tommy Cooker'...

German mechnaised units would occasionally improvise and ride their tanks, particulalry if they lacked supporting carriers, but this was not popular.

The Russians are perhaps exceptional in forming specifically trained tank rider troops and formations, particularly later in the war, and these formations seem to have been quite effective, particularly in prepared assaults. As you're probably aware, the tanks would rush in (typically assaulting positions less than 1000 meters away. They infantry would then dismount to protect the tanks from German antitank fire.

Losses among the tankodesantniki seem to have been predictably high, but then that's a characteristic of the dangers of tank riding, since they offer a clear target to enemy machinegunners and are exposed to high explosive AT fire not normally directed at infantry. Also as the first infantry into an assault, they suffered proportionately higher casualties.

Interceptor said:

Very good rules suggestions...

Very cool and informative! Thanks for that post Luddite..

thehuntercat said:

No worries.

years of historical wargaming...you sort of pick this stuff up!

Actually here's a couple of games we ran through (very old...we've not posted any of the more recent stuff...)

http://www.durhamwargames.co.uk/battle_reports/2004/Feb/12/index.asp ( you have to look closely to see the sneaky Americans lounging about in the town! - i played the Germans in the second game...gotta love those MG34s!!)

http://www.durhamwargames.co.uk/battle_reports/2003/December/04/index.asp ( Shermans 'brewing up' as usual... ...Crossfire. Best WWII tabletop ruleset out there .)

Hey, great information. I especially liked the tid-bit about Sherman's being nicknamed Ronsons . I love to tuck away little pieces of knowledge like that. Your post is demonstrative of one of the aspects of wargaming that I like...you get more than just entertainment out of it. It can also be a great tool for learning and teaching.

No worries chaps.

Glad to have been of service...