The biggest problem is not when a single MG squad attacks one tanks, firepower 2 versus 4 in armor. You may argue that a probability of 15% it is still to high, but the biggest problem is when multiple MG squads combine fire, or having 2 MG in one base allowing firepower 4 versus 4 in armor. The probability to damage a tank is way to high. If you have to fire all your mortars and MG seperatly, this will solve the gamey multiple MG attacks.

This does however NOT mean that tanks are imune to infanteri. I think that an standar infanteri squad having 4 firepower at point blank range is fine enough. And you do have anti-tank specilisations which is nice. They have also modeled AT guns.

However, one question: how good was the ofroad abilites of tanks realy? I steal this ide from boardgamesgeek:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/526160/toi-house-rules-revised

6. Bogging Down : Vehicles entering certain terrain run the risk of bogging down and being immediately marked as fatigued. Terrain and obstacles such as light woods, dense woods, rough ground, wire and streams may cause a vehicle to bog down. Vehicles check for bog when entering and exiting a hex. Some modifiers may apply to the bog check.
Fully Tracked Vehicle: avoids bogging down on 2+ on 1D6
Half Tracked Vehicles: avoids bogging down on 3+ on 1D6
Wheeled Vehicles: avoids bogging down on 4+ on 1D6

This seems appropriate and would curteinly reduce the effects of the tank.

Thank you, that thread has some great house rules ideas. It is worth a look.

Regarding tank destroyers in overrun:

Doctrine mitigates against their use. TD Bns. were equipped, trained and organized to kill tanks- not infantry. Like it or not, that's what they did. Tyrying to use them as tanks is not something that would have happened by choice in western Europe in WW2. Also, the only MG on a TD, if I recall accurately, was a .50 cal. mounted on the turret. A TD commander is not going to stand up exposed, blazing away with his .50 cal. as his lightly-armored TD rumbles towards enemy positions. remember, the TD would sacrifice speed to make an assault on fixed positions. If the TD commander is hit, that vehicle will most likely bug out or at least no longer serve as an effective weapon.

Imagine you are a loader or a gunner on a TD and your commander has just taken a round or piece of shrapnel to the head or torso and is bleeding all over your turret. What are the chances that you will abandon your position, push him out of the way and take over that .50 cal. (and his role as TD commander?) it's more likely that you and your driver will decide that discretion is the better part of valor, back up, find some concealment and try to patch up your TD commander.

The seemingly-excessive armor rating for TD may well reflect the American TD's ability to shoot and scoot without having to invoke lengthy ASL-style facing rules.

The game as it stands works very well as a playable representation of tactical combat. FFG managed to reach a balance of accuracy and playability that is rarely achieved in a tactical board game. This is a war game that is fun to play while retaining the flavor of WWII combat. If that doesn't work for you, by all means add house rules. As for me, there's plenty to do as a company or battalion commander as the game stands now. But I do anxiously await the Eastern Front addition.

Koa Kahiko said:

I completely agree with your post.

Koa Kahiko great post.

BJaffe01

Koa Kahiko said:

TD doctrine changed several times from pre-war intro thru to the end of the war or was ignored by the troops. Althouh not for the faint of heart, TD commanders of the greatest generation should not be attributed faint-hearted characteristics. TD crews (keep in mind crew moral) often used their vehicles fearlessly in contretemps to rational behavior in support of their infantry battalions and fellow TD platoon mates. Although they didn't do it often, TD commanders took their vehicles into harms way when fellow American GIs needed them. Period.

TD doctrine as originally conceived and written was to kill tanks. However, original TD doctrine was often completely ignored. In reality, they were more often used as infantry support in Italy and in France. In fact, when not used in the direct fire support role they augmented divisional artillery indirect fire support, thus dispelling the misconception in earlier posts that HE ammo for the 3 inch gun was in short supply. Until the Panzer Lehr division arrived, there was little German armor to engage and the M10 did great work in the hedgerows.

Following the arrival of the Panzer Lehr, TD commanders were shocked to discover the 3 inch gun's inability to penetrate the front glacis of the Panther at ranges less than 200 yards! It wasn't until the arrival of tungstun core ammo that the 3 inch gun was effected at longer ranges. Until then, the slower, weakly armored, slow turreted M10 knocked out Panthers via side and rear armor.

The .50 cal was originally mounted on the rear turret counterweight but was useless in that location for the TD commander to stand up and blaze away although there is a classic picture of one doing just that. Instead, the M10 .50 cal was relocated to the front left corner of the turret by its crews, thus allowing the TD commander easy access from his station to blaze away at infantry threats to his vehicle and in support of the infantry units that he was assigned to support. As an example of the suppressive value of the .50 cal, M8 Greyhound commanders were reporting that the Germans were very afraid of the .50. One M8 commander reported using the .50 many times with devastating effect against German infantry..."Half a dozen times we stopped and use our .50 caliber machine guns and 37s with devastating effect...the Huns really hate those 50s!". And this from a lowly M8.

TDs were vulnerable to snipers and air burst artillery (moreso than non-air burst mortars) due to the original open top design. In fact, most crews retro-fitted some type of thin top armor to the TDs. The lack of top armor however, did not deter these crews from hazarding their vehicles in support of mission or fellow soldiers although frequent use of the TD to offensively overrun infantry emplacements did not occur.

The M10 had strengths when operated in he support of infantry or with reccon vehicles. It's open top was a weakness but IMHO is overly emphasized or wrongly represented by the game designers and some players. More so than the open top, was the weakness of the 3 inch gun's initial AT ammo, it's thinner armor (than the M4), its speed (similar to the M4) and its pathetically slow turret. It was not shoot and scoot...that was the M18.

Facing was integral to WW2 armored warfare. Even the new "Battles of Napoleon" game soon to be published by FFG has facing and formation rules since they were absolutely integral to the tactics imposed by technology and without them, the flavor of Napoleonic warfare could not be experienced. BoN simplifies facing without sacrificing playability. All of the above can be said about WW2 tactics and technology and IMHO TOI. When confronted by a Jagdtiger, one M36 had to sneak up and attack its side armor to destroy (there were two Jagdtigers and one captured M4 confronting the M36). Simple and fun facing rules can be incorporated without sacrificing playability.

More thought should be given to updating the FAQ, writing clear and consistent rules and providing an advanced set of rules (not ASL-level). Moreover, I would love to see the TOI game designers become more actively involved with this forum.

Sources:

Ospray Publications: "M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-1953"

Ospray Publications:"US Tank and Tank Destroyer Battalions in the ETO 1944-1945"

Ospray Publications:"M8 Greyhound Light Armored Car 1941-1991"

"The Tank Killers: A History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force", Harry Yeide (2004)

Bazookajoe said:

Good post as well!

I'll note though that the M10 was also used by the Commonwealth forces (known as the Wolverine). It was also up-gunned with a 17pdr. to become the Achilles which, like the Sherman variant, the Firefly proved very effective against all German armour.

Unlike the American forces, the Commonwealth used the Achilles as more of a mobile AT gun instead of a tank hunter. This used it's heavier, slower (for a TD) pace to it's advantage by providing needed support until the heavy towed 17pdrs. could be brought into action.

While I think ToI does a great job of providing the base material for play, it also provides the opportunity to play with variants.

Brumbar:

That was a very well-composed and researched posting. I agree that TDs did a very fine job with the equipment and training they received. You are, according to what I have read about tank destroyers, their doctrine and use, correct in what you have said.

TD doctrine did change, and in a big way. The original intent of using tank destroyers as a mobile fire brigade did not pan out. There was, if I recall, only one instance during the war when a TD Bn. (let alone a larger force as was originally envisioned) was deployed according to doctrine against an enemy tank force - El Guettar. During the rest of the war, field commanders and TD Bn. commanders struggled to find the optimal use for TDs and came up with some very innovative answers. Usually, TDs were divided up and used to support Regs./Command commands/Bns. or even down to the infantry bn. rifle co. level As a former soldier (Infantry and Field Artillery), I am aware that doctrine doesn't come near to providing all the answers. Verly early on the TD Bns. were used in ways that no one stateside had envisaged. And, as a former Bataan Death March survivor who lives a few blocks away from us is fond of saying, "they did their jobs." As all the young men and women who serve in our armed forces today do.

But the topic here was overruns - in game mechanics, that would involve an individual vehicle passing through enemy positions and shooting them up, scaring the hell out of them and leaving them easy prey for the oncoming infantry to mop up.

I am aware that TDs were generally used later in the war to destroy enemy fortifications by fire and to support infantry attacks on German defensive positions. What I have read is that TDs were used to support attacks from 800-1000 yards away, but did not accompany infantry onto the objective in combined arms asaults. Nor have I found any accounts in which tank destroyers charged by themselves through infantry positions and then continued on their mission.

These were not weapons designed nor intended to close with the enemy and fight them at very close ranges, as overrun implies. Perhaps there were situations in which TDs had to shoot their way out of a difficult spot, but it is difficult for me to see how such a weapon would be willingly used in the role of overrunning enemy positions. Perhaps you could provide some examples?

Hi Koa Kahiko,

I think the post you are referring to is the one before mine (by Bazookajoe). I think you both have some very valid points.

Tank Destroyer doctrine was different from the Axis and the Allies and, as I have shown, even within the Allies themselves.

I think that the Concussive Fire of the M10 is appropriate but not sure that it should have an overrun capability (which doesn't factor in that often with the scenarios I've played in general, I'd rather the concussive fire!).

However, when looking at the German JagdPanzers I would say that even Concussive Fire should go by the way side. These were specifically tank destroyers with little more than a MG as anti-personnel. I would also limit their overrun capability. The assault gun on the other hand would be the counterpart to this effect.

I just so happen to be looking into some of these aspects lately in developing some rules for all of the additional figures I have that aren't currently covered by the existing rules so I find this post interesting.

And it's unlikely that SU-76'S,Nashorns or Marders really participated in many overruns either. The M-10 was used against Sigfried line bunkers when Shermans where unavailable so the concussive firepower for them is fine. Taking away their overrun ability is fine by me.

BJaffe01

It would be an interesting idea to make the ammunition an option.

So the player could decide at the start of a scenario if he wanted to load with HE (giving the Concussive Fire capability) or AP (and get the printed Penetration capability). Possibly even a mix of the two however, that would mean tracking types with markers.

That ain´t so easy. The HE shot wouldn´t damage vehicles that much. Taking ammunition into account, more accurate would be:

HE loaded: concussive firepower, range and fp against infantry - normal, range and fp against vehicles - MG values

AP loaded: no concussive firepower, penetration ability, range and fp against infantry - MG values, range and fp against vehicles - normal

HEAT loaded: no concussive firepower, no penetration, range and fp against infantry normal, range and fp against vehicles - normal

Is that AP solid or shot?

We could get into a variety of ammunition types, but in keeping with the simple nature of the game an either/or option in the case of the M10 would suffice I think. Either it can fire Concussive or get the Penetration ability.

Perhaps the bigger question is on the vehicles that simply didn't carry HE ammo at all (many of the British tanks in the desert war for example). Would they simply at best get the MG rating versus infantry (much like the halftrack)?

von Stichen said:

There still is a difference between vehicle guns. HE from a Panzer III with a 50mm gun does not quite pack the same punch against vehicles as a HE shell from a Brummbär (Sturmpanzer IV) with its 150mm gun does.

I don´t think so. I don´t think the HE shot would damage the tank armour at all, whatever its caliber is.

The bigger it is, the bigger blast it makes, true, but outside the tank.

That´s why HEAT was introduced, in my opinion. To 1. pierce the tank armour - something that was impossible for HE - and 2. explode and either tear up the pierced armour or kill the crew if inside.

It´s still only my humble opinion though. You have some sources to back you up?

Without a doubt HEAT is more effective against tanks than HE. However, I wouldn't be so quick to discount HE in a direct or indirect role. Concussive effect is exactly that, you can neutralize a tank and not penetrate the armour (many of the crews suffered from this effect). And yes, the calibre of the round would certainly make a difference.

Weight of fire is also often discounted when it comes to HE. The more the better. The Soviets were the masters of massed artillery doctrine and proved it's effectiveness.

To cite an example from this website - http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm

"An often asked question is about the effect of indirect artillery fire on tanks. One example helps, in 1944 the German IX Corps in Italy reported that artillery fire was the largest single cause of its tanks losses, it seems that this was usually from medium and heavy guns controlled by air OPs. The second largest source was German destruction of damaged or broken-down tanks to prevent their capture (mechanical reliability was not a feature of German tanks - but perhaps some of this was due to the Special Operations Executive's campaign of insaisissable sabotage). Other tanks, anti-tank, air attack and mines well below the first two as the causes of tank losses."

What I am trying to discover in detail is the types of ammunition available to the various TD's in service. In the absence of HE, I think the vehicle would have to go with the MG rating (though, I wonder what to asses the vehicles that didn't have those either!?). Again, interesting discussion.

Brummbar said:

I think the concussive effect should be available to the M10 and other TDs from the beginning. The penetration effect, however, should be contingent on the scenario and date in 1944. The tungstun carbide core T4 HVAP 3 inch rounds were markedly superior to the standard M62 AP rounds. 2000 T4 rounds were initially delivered by air to the ETO for 3 inch and the 76mm (M18 and Sherman) in August 1944 but did not become widely available until Nov 1944. IMHO, only the T4 rounds should qualify for the penetration effect.

Outstanding discussion!

Bazookajoe said:

You don't happen to have any online references for this do you? I'm trying to find some sources on how much HE was used by TD's in general (or even in specific vehicle cases) and while it seems that the guns on these vehicles were capable of firing HE, I can't find any indicators of ammunition load distribution.

I think the Concussive or Penetration option makes things a little more gamey though. If the M10 had both, it would be more of a tank than a TD which spoils that aspect.

Interesting to note the Germans had HVAP since '42 but stopped using tungsten due to a shortage later in the war.

Brummbar said:

I don't have any online sources. My reference for the previous info was from"M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53", S.J Zaloga, P. 34. Osprey Publishing's New Vanguard series #57.

"The Tank Killers", Yeide., thoroughly documents the use of the TDs in the indirect fire mode from the Italian campaign forward. The heavy use of the M10 for indirect fire and in the infantry support mode seems to convince me that there was ample HE available and carried. I have not been able to locate the quantity split yet. I think concussive, in my opinion, is supportable. Penetration effect would depend on dates and scenario and in my opinion should not necessarily be standard. You made a great point regarding German tungsten availablity. Interestingly, even the US experienced tungsten shortages such that an aggregate 18K rounds for all calibers had been delivered to the ETO by March 1945 (including for the M10 (3 inch gun)). Although the ammo issue does bring into question the 3 inch guns penetration effect, it was superior to the 75mm against the Panzer IV and lesser German AFVs. It was only the Panther and Tiger frontal armor that gave the 3 inch (76mm) gun problems.

The designers try to model all this into the game. Within the confines of the M10 abstraction they did OK, but without the dimension of simple facing rules, the M10 and similar vehicles lack the character that attracts people to the WW2 tactical genre.

What are your thoughts on the .50? Although it is a MG and they are addressed in the game, I've seen enough reports to support a special infantry suppression effect.

Thanks for the reference Bazookajoe, I'll check it out (Osprey, no surprise, they are a great source of reference).

As for the Fifty Cal, I know it can operate in an indirect role (I've seen it myself). Might make for an interesting rule. Something akin to mortars but with direct fire capability as well.

I see a lot of fun potential in taking the framework and figuring out the various weapons that haven't been addressed yet by the system. Fury of the Bear should also help advance that study.

Brummbar said:

That's an excellent idea for the .50 cal. It has an amazing suppressive capability and have witnessed it in angry action too. Like mortars and artillery fire, the .50 could have a suppressive capability along with normal fire. I am of the school that believes a weapon is usually fired for to damage/kill with suppression being an ancilliary effect and find the suppression/normal difference to be artificial and gamey. Fire should always be normal with suppression a secondary effect. That said, in the spirit of the rules, I like your idea of giving the .50 the suppression ability. Interestingly, most M10s mounted more than one .50 MG both forward and aft.

With regard to indirect fire..definitely yes. I think this should also be a capability of the U.S. TDs and all other SP weapons due to the increased elevation capability afforded by the turret/compartment configuration (thoroughly documented).

It's true German soldiers crapped their pants when a 50 cal was slinging bullets their way, but the same is true from the Allies perspective too. The MG 42 had a similar reputation among American soldiers that had this weapon shooting at them. All in all, I doubt there is much actual, or perceived, difference when you have to dodge a rain of steel from either of these guns. So to even start this new discussion is jumping the shark.

Just a thought on ammunition carried.
If I were a commander of units ordered to carry out indirect or direct firesupport of infnatry, I would likely order them filled to the brim with HE. Being american I would proberly stock up on some white phosporous too. AP would stay in the supply trucks.
On the other hand, if the mission was to combat tank or fortifications, AP would be the load of the day, with little HE.
But perhaps giving Players the power over which stats to give tanks for each scenario is a bit much.

Cannons fired indirectly is and was well known. It is not something they are very good at in the Local enviroment, but something they do to targets several miles away. Mostly when there is a shortage of regular Artillery to do the job. Used like this, you could park the supply trucks with HE right next to the vehicle and reload as often as you like.
This is something I could very well see in a SSR.

Giving MGs even more power in the game sounds dangerous. On the other hand if a 50' cal gains Indirect fire, does the MG42 get the ability to move and fire?

Suppressive fire has been used since the middle ages. At least!

Brummbar said:

The British also used their MGs in an indirect fire role sometimes. Flames of War has special rules for that.

von Stichen said:

I usually base my experimental stuff on Flames of War (the rules might be a bit stiff, but the stats and OOBs are very well researched) and ASL stats. I also have a few Osprey books.