Tank Riders {SG2]

Howdy!

> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Jeremy Sadler wrote:

> Yes, but that doesn't preclude an ambush or something.

A nice partisan assault would do it....:)

Laterish!

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Jon Davis wrote:

> It will sure beat walking. You won't regularly see powered armor on a

Hey, a number of European armies *still* ride tanks on occasion!

> Once the rounds start flying, infantry would be "motivated" to

Infantry never rode tanks into combat, or anywhere NEAR combat <g>. Ricochets
and armour spaulling would only increase casualties.

> If I heard a MDC round pass by me while riding on a choice target, I'd

	Oh, yeah... :)

        Ken

Kenneth spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Howdy!

Well, I don't know about that. I seem to recall having seen depictions of
tanks streaming through Ukrainian steppes with riders aboard INTO combat...
now I'm sure they dismount once shots are fired or they reach a position where
they know they can see the enemy. But it moves your APC less infantry around a
hell of a lot quicker than walking. And keeps them with the tanks, at least to
start with. Of course, those depictions may be fanciful, but are based off of
some historical precedent.

It would be risky to do it in combat, and I think the rules I propose would
penalize it.... if every round that hit your tank also probalby hit the
infantry.... and if you could fire at the infantry anyway...

(There should have been a 1 DS negative modifier on range die for defence for
the riders versus infantry firing AT the riders.... they are part of a larger
target with nowhere to go but off.....)

I wouldn't recommend it once the shooting started lest ye write off your units
with ease. OTOH, I'll consider using it tactically if it offers my leg
infantry some manoevre potential.

/************************************************

A note about riding around on the outside of AFV's! Riding on the vehicle was
always preferable to walking anywhere, anytime. The vehicle ride becomes a
hazard when artillery fire come in. Fragments reflected by the tank armor do
not give a rider anything but the chance for two entrance wounds for one piece
of shrapnel. In VietNam the customary practice was to ride on the top deck of
the M113. The greatest fear was landmines. (Some of which were dud one
thousand pound bombs buried in the road by VC and NVR's who dug them out of
the ground for "recycling". The APC squads figured they could always drop in
the hatches if taken under
A/P fire or shrapnel, but the mine was the biggest fear.
The "desantniki" tank riders of Soviet WW II rode on top in the assault so
they could dismount when the tanks needed infantry support. They often died
like flies in machine gun fire or shrapnel storms, but Soviet doctrine was
willing to make the "sacrifice". When heavily armored infantry and Hover
transports come into regular use, they should be able to drop through floor
hatches, hug the ground and let the APC glide over them. Then they are
dismounted without ever giving up close cover.

Howdy!

> On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Well, I don't know about that. I seem to recall having seen

There is some great footage of tank riders "going into combat".
These are re-enactment scenes shotwell after Kursk and and Second Karkov
offensive. Loza (in his book "Commanding the Red Army's Tanks") has some great
anectdotes about infantry riding tanks.

You may be right, though. Just because it shouldn't be done doesn't mean it
*wasn't* done.:)

> It would be risky to do it in combat, and I think the rules I propose

Armour and debris spaulling were big concerns, as well as ricochets. Ouch!

> I wouldn't recommend it once the shooting started lest ye write off

True.

Laterish!

        Ken