Tank Cover?

[Cpt. John Miller]

I have had this idea for a while,
What if a friendly soldier that shares an open hex with a tank has cover.
Or cover with a minus 1 on the cover save.
Most infantry would use tanks as cover to aproach enemy positions, it was one of the main uses for tanks in supporting infantry.
I know that the hexes represent a lot of space but only one unit can share a hex with a tank anyway.
Anything that would attack the rear of the tank can negate any cover while attacking the infantry in that hex, to show that the soldier can only be in cover when behind the tank(as facing allows).
I think this rule would work well and not upset the balance too much.

[Uncle_Joe]

I've seen differing references about using tanks for cover. In many cases, experienced troops reportedly avoided tanks like the plague because they drew all sorts of fire.

On the other hand, if you HAD to advance across the open into MG fire or somesuch, I cant imagine not wanting to use the AFVs as cover.

Personally I think it might make a good rule (Cover on a 5+) to help encourage more infantry/tank doctrine.

[oddfellow]

I fully support this idea. A lot of the stuff I've read talked about soldiers using tanks this way and (ok I know this isn't super-credible) but when playing Brothers In Arms video game I always used tanks as mobile cover to cross open areas.

[Khayman7]

I've seen differing references about using tanks for cover. In many cases, experienced troops reportedly avoided tanks like the plague because they drew all sorts of fire.

On the other hand, if you HAD to advance across the open into MG fire or somesuch, I cant imagine not wanting to use the AFVs as cover.

Personally I think it might make a good rule (Cover on a 5+) to help encourage more infantry/tank doctrine.

Nice rule, simple, efficient and logical IMO.

We were also thinking of something like this but using destroyed vehicles to grant that cover roll in non-cover hexes. Although the point about hiding behind a burning vehicle loaded with gas and ammo was brought up, the logical thinking is that troops could still position the hulk between themselves and the aggressor as long as there was only one. Though the new enfilading fire rule would take care of flanking issue now that I think about it.

[OldBloodandGuts]

I think Uncle Joe is right on this one -- tanks drew (and still draw, if you know anyone in Iraq) lots of fire. If you were going to have them provide cover in the game for infantry, you'd also need to make some kind of rule that makes those infantry more vulnerable to incidental fire.

As it is, in that abstract sort of AAM way, the two effects cancel each other out. This is another one of those rules that ain't broke.

[boersma8]

I think Uncle Joe is right on this one -- tanks drew (and still draw, if you know anyone in Iraq) lots of fire. If you were going to have them provide cover in the game for infantry, you'd also need to make some kind of rule that makes those infantry more vulnerable to incidental fire.

As it is, in that abstract sort of AAM way, the two effects cancel each other out. This is another one of those rules that ain't broke.

I agree too that one offsets the other one.....