On captured tanks

[Clausewitz]

The Russian NA on using tank salvage doesn't seem to be used much; I think the problem is that it just doesn't seem credible.

In fact the majority of enemy tanks used were captured as a result of mechanical failure, rather than knocked-out machines being ressurrected.

I therefore propose that
Whenever a tank moves (except by transport) it must make a breakdown roll. If it rolls a 1 the tank has suffered a technical failure and cannot complete it's move. Breakdown rolls must be made after all moves have been ordered (it is conveniant to place all moving tanks over the borders they're attempting to cross before making rolls). This applies to all moves including combat, non combat, blitzes and retreats.

Tanks defending in a battle must also make breakdown rolls even though they don't move into combat. Let's assume that they still need to manouver into position and are therefore still subject to breakdowns. If defending armoured units breakdown they cannot participate in that battle; they can neither fire nor be taken as casualties.

The side holding a territory after a battle is considered to capture any broken down enemy tank remaining in that territory. Note that this may be either side; the defender may capture tanks which succesfully moved into battle but failed their breakdown roll when attempting to retreat.

Captured tanks are simply replaced with one of your own tank pieces.
A&A veterans with stocks of spare pieces may wish to make captured tanks more flavorful by having a number of pieces painted in enemy colours so that, for example, a battle on the eastern front may involve grey painted T-34s fighting for Germany and red-brown Panthers in the Soviet forces.

For players using winter rules, tanks in effected areas are more likeley to breakdown. I suggest a breakdown rate in severe conditions of 2/6 for defenders and 3/6 for attacking/moving units.

[pellulo]

Even thought the Germans had tank advantage of quality, on the Western Front, they did not have the numbers. Roughly it took, if we stick to the US forces main battle tank the Sherman (the majority was the 75mm. cannon version, the minority was upgraded 76mm. cannon version, or, the re-lend leased Britsh 17 pounder Firefly/Sherman tank), the losses was roughly about 4 shermys to every 1 panzar.

If the Western Allies troopers suffered from "Tiger Tank Fever", the Germans were suffering from"where the hell, are all these Shermans coming from?", it is reckon, that about a quarter of "New Shermans" coming onto the battlefield were rebuilt savalge Shermans(maybe some remodification).

The Germans had a poor record of salvaging their tanks, also it did not help, that about their tanks, were very complicated to fix, and, many were abandon/destroyed by their crews. Rather than the Shermans simplicity, for mass production, made them easier to fix & maintane on the battlefield (the majority of lend lease tanks were Shermans & Lee/Grants & Stuarts).

A final note, about 16% of Russian Armour was lend leased (yep the majority were Shermans, they did not think much of Brtish armour). Also the Germans, appreciated the Shermans, they had enough captured Shermans(about 100), enough, if they were to put togethere with A.P.C., Armour cars, T.D., some self propelled guns, to give themsleves a Panzar armour army (I do not know, if these Shermans, all fought togethere, can you imagine, an allied soldier, looking at a Sherman tank, coming at him, with a Nazi symbol painted on it!, it would probably gall Hitler also). Thanks, Pellulo

[series]

The Russian NA on using tank salvage doesn't seem to be used much; I think the problem is that it just doesn't seem credible.

In fact the majority of enemy tanks used were captured as a result of mechanical failure, rather than knocked-out machines being ressurrected.

I therefore propose that
Whenever a tank moves (except by transport) it must make a breakdown roll. If it rolls a 1 the tank has suffered a technical failure and cannot complete it's move. Breakdown rolls must be made after all moves have been ordered (it is conveniant to place all moving tanks over the borders they're attempting to cross before making rolls). This applies to all moves including combat, non combat, blitzes and retreats.

Tanks defending in a battle must also make breakdown rolls even though they don't move into combat. Let's assume that they still need to manouver into position and are therefore still subject to breakdowns. If defending armoured units breakdown they cannot participate in that battle; they can neither fire nor be taken as casualties.

The side holding a territory after a battle is considered to capture any broken down enemy tank remaining in that territory. Note that this may be either side; the defender may capture tanks which succesfully moved into battle but failed their breakdown roll when attempting to retreat.

Captured tanks are simply replaced with one of your own tank pieces.
A&A veterans with stocks of spare pieces may wish to make captured tanks more flavorful by having a number of pieces painted in enemy colours so that, for example, a battle on the eastern front may involve grey painted T-34s fighting for Germany and red-brown Panthers in the Soviet forces.

For players using winter rules, tanks in effected areas are more likeley to breakdown. I suggest a breakdown rate in severe conditions of 2/6 for defenders and 3/6 for attacking/moving units.
This makes tanks not worth using/capturing. It's just too powerful. Would 1 out of every 6 tanks fail? I doubt that highly. Rolling 2 1's in a row would be a bit more balanced, but quite a production if I do say so myself. Now, Artillery could be captured by enemy troops, so really unless you want to handicap at least all land units, it would not be fair at all.

Another problem. You say this happens in noncombat movement to disrupt the movement. So since they cant enter enemy territorys then, they cant be captured. All the rule would do then is limit their movement. Why not just reduce movement to 1? It would be much easier.

And remember, they need 2 break down rolls if they move 2 spaces. Using 2/3 or less for russian winters is suicide. Also, if you are indeed referring to the NA, it previously only affected Russian units, contrary to belief that it effects the Germans. So would all tanks be effected, or only in certain territorys?

[Drax Kramer]

The mere idea of panzerkorps failing to get to the battlefield in the course of several months is so out of the scope of this game that I hope Clausewitz will reconsider his proposal and quietly set it aside :)


Drax

[Clausewitz]

I should add here that I consider tanks too powerful in the new version. For example, I don't see why anyone buys artillery at all when you can get a 3-3-2 tanks for just 1 more IPC. So this idea was partly to reduce the impact of the new supertanks.
As for winter rules, they should affect any unit in severe winter territories. Attacking in the middle of the Russian winter with sophisticated armoured units SHOULD be suicidal; that's why the German learned the hard way not to do this.

[series]

I should add here that I consider tanks too powerful in the new version. For example, I don't see why anyone buys artillery at all when you can get a 3-3-2 tanks for just 1 more IPC. So this idea was partly to reduce the impact of the new supertanks.
As for winter rules, they should affect any unit in severe winter territories. Attacking in the middle of the Russian winter with sophisticated armoured units SHOULD be suicidal; that's why the German learned the hard way not to do this.
well, if you consider tanks overpowerful, then in that aspect the rules seem like it will help.