Did the Germans and Russians really...

park their tanks two miles away and cut down everyone with machine guns? Or is that just how people play ROOST?

[mo0nbuggy1]

Well.....Not entirely. See, tanks, apc's and most other armoured vehicles are extremely vulnerable in urban terrain unless heavily supported by infantry, the threat of mines AT guns and shoulder fired missiles are just to overwhelming, instead they are mostly used as far off fire support, using their main gun's and coax to hit enemy positions from far away.
The same goes for in-game as well.

[Overholt]

I just hope I dont get stuck in an urban map and no infantry will support me.

[:Dark Dragon]

No and there are a few reasons this happens in ROOST, and in other combined arms games in general.

In short: Tanks have no fear-factor. You just respawn. Unless its 0% reinf, or this new Countdown game mode, maybe.

Infantry AT is -way- too overpowered, or just way too easy to use. ROOSTs satchel charges are like small nuclear bombs. Rocket AT and fausts may have been powerful, but you had to know how to use them, or else they would just skip right off the target.

Hopefully the more complicated damage model in RO2 will solve some of this.

[Unterscharfuhrer]

Originally Posted by :Dark Dragon

Infantry AT is -way- too overpowered, or just way too easy to use. ROOSTs satchel charges are like small nuclear bombs. Rocket AT and fausts may have been powerful, but you had to know how to use them, or else they would just skip right off the target.
.

Generally youre right, but a Panzerfaust is really easy to use, just aim and hit the button! Aslong nobody behinds you its childs play to hit an enemy tank íf its near enough to you!

Thanks for the replies!

I just get frustrated because I have admittedly not played this game as long as everyone else. But it frustrates me so much when somebody on the opposing team parks so far I can't see them and then cuts down everyone as they leave the spawn area. I can understand the urban maps, but it makes me want to beat my head against a wall when it's not and there is no possible way for an infantryman to get even remotely close enough to do something about it.

[Demonic Spoon]

Do you think that it was easy for infantry to kill tanks in open fields historically?

[Alexander Ostmann]

Originally Posted by Demonic Spoon

Do you think that it was easy for infantry to kill tanks in open fields historically?

Generally if the infantry was intrenched, yes. Tanks would be at a huge disadvantage in this situation because the only way to clear an intrenched enemy would be to get close. And then once the tanks are close, they are easy prey to AT weapons.

[Hans_klempner]

Originally Posted by Alexander Ostmann

Generally if the infantry was intrenched, yes. Tanks would be at a huge disadvantage in this situation because the only way to clear an intrenched enemy would be to get close. And then once the tanks are close, they are easy prey to AT weapons.

Hmm according to the accounts I've read, I would consider stopping panzers in front of an entrenched position suicide, that is, if there is an attack under way.
Generally the tanks would only stop or slow down to shoot and move on, moving past the entrenched positions and literarily running over AT positions while, in the best case, panzergrenadiers with halftrucks or just supporting grenadiers would attack the left behind, confused infantry.

This would apply to open terrain, urban combat is a big no-no for tanks obviously.
The best case for urban combat I could think of is a very close co-operation between self-propelled guns and assault infantry.

[TodSky]

I think there are several things that need to be taken into consideration when it comes to tanks engaging infantry from long distances. The first being that the MG’s on a tank are meant for close defence of the vehicle against enemy anti-tank teams. With that in mind a sensible tank commander in a real combat situation is more than likely not going to waste the best portion of his ammunition on a target which he has a limited chance of eliminating. Especially if we are talking about distances of 1 km or further.

However it would also be likely that the tank may wish to use its MG’s (in a limited manner) at medium to long ranges if the commander feels that the use of a HE shell (which maybe in short supply) would be unnecessary or uneconomical, and therefore chose to engage with the MG’s.

So there’s two thoughts that you may want to bear in mind. But with things like this it all depends on situation and context.

Hoffmann

[LogisticEarth]

Heavy MGs and tanks would absolutely fire on targets 500-1000 meters out, if only for interdiction purposes. The thing is, in most RO maps, the "long distances" are only 500-700 meters maximum, on the large maps like Arad. Much shorter on your average map. So yeah, they can be deadly.

[Roardk]

My Grand-dad was under WW2 a German armored scout car commander doing the polish blitzkrieg he once told me that he had a Calvary unit rushing his unit and within 4-5 seconds of pointing the Vehicle's MG on target it was all over and the men lay on the ground with the horses

Later in the war he advanced to drive a Panzer 3 then Panzer 4 before being captured by the Americans few days after Dday

Sadly my grand-dad died when i was 10(13 years ago) and i didn't get to hear his whole story, but i know he won a Iron Cross 2nd class and got the wounded badge for being hit by a British fighter strafing in Africa and ended up being ship back to Italy-Germany for recovery which probably saved him from capture in 43

[GRIZZLY]

no they parked them 1,000 miles away.... time for a new realism map!

[Wesreidau]

The hull MG was intended for close defense and assault. The coax MG exists to destroy soft targets (trucks, troops) and suppress and harass general areas of enemy resistance. It makes perfect sense to park a tank like a Panzer III, which would be vulnerable at close range to AT rifles and dozens of other threats, at 500m or more from the enemy lines and positions with suppressive fire and smother enemy MG nests from within the armor. In this fashion you can use a tank as basically a bulletproof machine gun crew in support of an attack.

[Joseph-Porta]

Originally Posted by :Dark Dragon

No and there are a few reasons this happens in ROOST, and in other combined arms games in general.

In short: Tanks have no fear-factor. You just respawn. Unless its 0% reinf, or this new Countdown game mode, maybe.

Infantry AT is -way- too overpowered, or just way too easy to use. ROOSTs satchel charges are like small nuclear bombs. Rocket AT and fausts may have been powerful, but you had to know how to use them, or else they would just skip right off the target.

Hopefully the more complicated damage model in RO2 will solve some of this.

Strangely enough tanks make you **** bricks in PRM. Just the sound of clattering tracks make grown men cry.. I suppose its because they are really really hard to take out AND they have loooong respawn times.

I suppose they could make fausts take a moment longer to deploy.. you have to Hit SOMETHING not just the tracks to blow a tank up. (then again the faust used to toast the crew in the t34 anyways) add that to long respawntimes.. I suppose it could work. and maps have to be much bigger so that you can flank the tanks.. and not have only one way to run, IE; not only way to take out the tank is running down the street its covering etc.

Originally Posted by Alexander Ostmann

Generally if the infantry was intrenched, yes. Tanks would be at a huge disadvantage in this situation because the only way to clear an intrenched enemy would be to get close. And then once the tanks are close, they are easy prey to AT weapons.

Unless you are in RO where usually these trenches are 10 cm deep or are 2.5 m high.. and are about 2 meters wide. >_> and more often, we dont have any supporting AT guns behind the lines of any kind ._. or simply no way to take out the tank because the satches and fausts cant reach them, AT mines are non excistant, AT rifles cant hurt them and defenders rarely have any artillery to speak of.


Then in Real life.. it was not uncommon for tanks to just drive straight up to the trenchs. turn their tank and just roll over the trenches and kill the infantry with their hull mg and run them over with their tracks because defenders had no AT equipment what so ever. (once spoke with an vet who witnessed this on the eastern front)

[LeftHandPath]

Originally Posted by strykpilot

Thanks for the replies!

I just get frustrated because I have admittedly not played this game as long as everyone else. But it frustrates me so much when somebody on the opposing team parks so far I can't see them and then cuts down everyone as they leave the spawn area. I can understand the urban maps, but it makes me want to beat my head against a wall when it's not and there is no possible way for an infantryman to get even remotely close enough to do something about it.

I´m sure you do it,but you could prone immediatly,R.O. isnt for run all time,sometimes you need to be prone long time.To see your team mates around;have a little patience,starting is a little hard.

Try to think the real moment,no way to scream "hey dude,stop camping with tank",i hate arty bombardment,but in real war,a lot arty falling around and no chance to logout the game or change server.R.O. lets you to feel,a little,those moments.

(Sorry,not english)

See us around

[dakuth]

Basically, yes they did. HE and copious amounts of machine-gun fire to suppress enemy positions while infantry closed and assaulted. This was best done from range - say 500-1000m - because if you get within 500m you became quite destructible to AT weaponry (Panzerfaust and the like.)

Beyond those ranges those weapons were useless, and weren't very reliable until about 200m. Then the % of kill hits would have been fairly low.

Still, when you're trapped in a tin-can and can't see very well, and there is even a reasonable *possibility* of someone you can't see brewing you up... you wouldn't take the chance. So they didn't.

Tankers would never have driven into urban areas that were not cleared by infantry first unless utterly desperate (even then would probably have retreated without proper support rather than risk it.) They would have hung back and provided overwatch (HE and Machine guns) for infantry who would clear it of potential AT threats. Thus the combined arms approach supported each other.

[kymu]

If u guyz ever played ww2 online, u would see this fact right away, whenver tanks gone into city within inf fights, it get sapped or killed by ATG.
Whenever tanks not supported by inf and surrounded by bushes= dead tank, sapped or at inf or atg again, or even killed by air bombers

[Mormegil]

Originally Posted by strykpilot

Thanks for the replies!

I just get frustrated because I have admittedly not played this game as long as everyone else. But it frustrates me so much when somebody on the opposing team parks so far I can't see them and then cuts down everyone as they leave the spawn area. I can understand the urban maps, but it makes me want to beat my head against a wall when it's not and there is no possible way for an infantryman to get even remotely close enough to do something about it.

That's a case where the officers should be tossing smoke for cover.

[Sined {Oz}]

There were a lot more tanks (light like pkI,II III and iVs) around and sdkfzs of many types 222,Pumas etc
the whole military "machine" being designed to put as many bullets in the air toward the enemy to stop return fire and avoid close quarter fighting.

no Stukas or Heavy artillery 150mm etc modeled in game.
so i think tripwire are on the mark by allowing a few tanks a limited yet powerful role.
the spawn shooting however is a map designers problem and should be avoided unless for good reason
IMHO