Re: Helltank and Helltank Destroyer

> Date: 	 Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:27:02 -0500
> From: 	 Jonathan Jarrard <jjarrard@ford.com>
> Reply-to:	 FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Organization:  Ford Motor Company
> To:		 FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Subject:	 Re: Helltank and Helltank Destroyer

> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> > 
> > BTW - the problem with any large military vehicle (aircraft carrier,
> > battleship, large tank) is that it can't mount enough defenses to
> > stop an equal value in attacks from smaller armed opponents. It has
a
> > strategic purpose that the smaller vehicles can't fullfill (range,
> > fuel, carrying capacity, etc.) so it has its place, but it certainly
> > isn't the equal of the 'swarm' in individual combat.
> ************/
> 
> During several periods of history, that has not been true.  No gun a
WWI
> destoryer mounted could hurt a battleship seriously, and even the
light
> guns mounted by a battleship could damage the destroyer (while the
> largest could sink or cripple one with a single shot).  Torpedoes were
a
> threat, but that's why battleships didn't travel alone.  The screening
> ships meant the destoryers couldn't put their torpedoes on target, and
> the battleship meant that light units couldn't defeat the screen.

Apples and oranges here.  I don't think the two are related.  

 
> That's why I was asking about GROUPS of super-heavy units, or even
mixed
> forces.  One of the ugliest things I ever saw in a game of G.E.V. was
a
> force that consisted of a PanEuropean Fencer (medium OGRE and
long-range
> missile platform extraordinaire, and a large escort of GEVS.	The GEVs
> ranged out on all sides flushing hidden enemy units and forcing
> artillery positions to unmask or be destroyed, and then the Fencer
would
> swat them.
> 
> Things were even worse in a game I watched where two Fencers were
> actually operating in tandem with a mixture of Mark V Mark III OGRES,
> with a light GEV screen.  The OGRES were able to support each other
with
> their heavy guns and keep one another from being mobbed, while the
> Fencers in the center provided untouchable long-range support (similar
> to a carrier group in current practice).

Ogre in NOT a tactical game.  It is a grand tactical abstraction.

 
> Admittedly, it was an immensely powerful force and represented a huge
> committment of resources for a breakthrough on the enemy center.  On
the
> other hand, the defending force was ENORMOUS, but proved completely
> unable to stop the attack.  Admittedly, some of the escort OGRES got
> pretty chewed (several were immobilized completely), but none were
> actually destroyed, while the defenders got mashed.  And if you're in
a
> campaign where repairing units is much easier than replacing them
> (especially replacing entire formations) that could be an important
> factor.
> 
> On the other hand, OGRE/G.E.V. was set up to allow super-tanks to
> operate effectively.	I was curious to know whether anyone's tried
this
> with more realistic rule systems.
> 
Both Ogre and Battletech tactics suffer when used in DSII or SGII - 
its because the units are completely unrealistic to begin with.

KR