Phalanx vs Tanks

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
how can spearmen attack tank platoon?

I'm probably more interested in discusion of tactic that could be
used by smart commander when he is attacked by tank platoon.
So to don't act completely free of restriction, lets asume Civ3
situation a civilization that has few tanks pieces attack another
more populated that is packed by spearmans. There were NO transfers
of explosives sooner than xxxx weeks before attack, and lets asume
that an obtained explosives would be late.
Lets also asume that after half occupation anti tank weapons would
be available at least for special forces.

Lets asume that enemy tank comander thinks that they could do nil
against tanks and act in accordance to that idea.
Lets asume that military tactic is unrestricted for defending site,
and they'd have some time for preparations.

State of roads is unknown. Assault created international blocade of
attacking nation in 3 weeks, but they don't know about it in first
few days of combat operations.
(so you could choose state of roads and other factors, and write it
at top of the possible tactic.)
59 answers Last reply
More about phalanx tanks
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <Xns967EC4039F7BRaghar@195.250.128.45>, notfor@mail.com
    says...

    > I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > how can spearmen attack tank platoon?

    Ambush the tankers when they're locking their car in front of the
    recruiting station?


    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
    over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
    was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
    International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
    Amnesty for the rest of your life."
    - Jay Nordlinger
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Raghar" <notfor@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns967EC4039F7BRaghar@195.250.128.45...
    > I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >

    unsuccessfully.


    > I'm probably more interested in discusion of tactic that could be
    > used by smart commander when he is attacked by tank platoon.
    > So to don't act completely free of restriction, lets asume Civ3
    > situation a civilization that has few tanks pieces attack another
    > more populated that is packed by spearmans. There were NO transfers
    > of explosives sooner than xxxx weeks before attack, and lets asume
    > that an obtained explosives would be late.
    > Lets also asume that after half occupation anti tank weapons would
    > be available at least for special forces.
    >
    > Lets asume that enemy tank comander thinks that they could do nil
    > against tanks and act in accordance to that idea.
    > Lets asume that military tactic is unrestricted for defending site,
    > and they'd have some time for preparations.
    >
    > State of roads is unknown. Assault created international blocade of
    > attacking nation in 3 weeks, but they don't know about it in first
    > few days of combat operations.
    > (so you could choose state of roads and other factors, and write it
    > at top of the possible tactic.)
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Raghar wrote:
    > I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > how can spearmen attack tank platoon?

    Didn't you read the manual: appendix W, section 2, paragraph P? Those
    spearmen are also carrying panzerfausts which they keep hidden in their
    loincloths. It makes them kind of irritable, but they get to play hell
    with any tank platoons they encounter.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Raghar <notfor@mail.com> wrote in news:Xns967EC4039F7BRaghar@
    195.250.128.45:

    > I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > how can spearmen attack tank platoon?

    Read "High Crusade" by Paul Anderson whare a bunch of crusaders are
    kidnapped by aliens and proceed to take over the galactic empire using old
    tactics with new weapons. A tank is just like a big horse, you dig a deep
    and steep trench and cover it with logs and branches so it isn't visible.
    Then you trick the tanks into attacking that way. It'll take some time to
    dig large enough holes, but if you are clever enough to dig them in the
    right place it's doable. Remaining infantry outside the tanks can be
    overwhelmed by numbers.

    Or you simply sneak up and kill them when they are taking a break outside
    their tanks. Even more realistically: in a country where there only are
    spearmen the tanks won't find any gas. Just wait until they have run out
    and can't move and declare victory by default.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <Xns967EEAF1B79A6ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229>,
    Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se says...

    > Or you simply sneak up and kill them when they are taking a break outside
    > their tanks. Even more realistically: in a country where there only are
    > spearmen the tanks won't find any gas. Just wait until they have run out
    > and can't move and declare victory by default.

    Mighty selective environment we're imagining here; there are tanks, but
    no supporting infantry, airpower, or logistics. How - *exactly* - did
    these tanks appear in "spearman" country without all the things that
    tanks need to exist?

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
    the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
    in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
    liberals."
    - Karl Rove
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

    On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:06:07 GMT, Thomas Palm
    <Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se> wrote:

    >Raghar <notfor@mail.com> wrote in news:Xns967EC4039F7BRaghar@
    >195.250.128.45:
    >
    >> I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >> how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >
    >Or you simply sneak up and kill them when they are taking a break outside
    >their tanks. Even more realistically: in a country where there only are
    >spearmen the tanks won't find any gas. Just wait until they have run out
    >and can't move and declare victory by default.

    Or you find some modern infantry and mug them for their anti-tank
    weapons.

    --Craig

    --
    "Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory lasts forever." - The Replacements
    Craig Richardson (crichard-tacoma@worldnet.att.net)
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Raghar" <notfor@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns967EC4039F7BRaghar@195.250.128.45...
    > I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > how can spearmen attack tank platoon?

    The tankers can't sit in their tanks 24/7, the spearmen can just attack them
    at night when the tankers are asleep on the ground. A man with a spear will
    always beat an unarmed sleeping man.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Raghar wrote:

    >I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >how can spearmen attack tank platoon?

    Short answer: they can't.
    Longer answer: see below.

    >I'm probably more interested in discusion of tactic that could be
    >used by smart commander when he is attacked by tank platoon.
    >So to don't act completely free of restriction, lets asume Civ3
    >situation a civilization that has few tanks pieces attack another
    >more populated that is packed by spearmans. There were NO transfers
    >of explosives sooner than xxxx weeks before attack, and lets asume
    >that an obtained explosives would be late.

    You can assume lots of things. In the end the result depends more on
    those assumptions than on the starting question of "tanks vs
    spearmen".

    In reality, a situation where a "pure" bronze age spearman phalanx
    without any guns or explosives meets a modern tank platoon is
    extremely unlikely to happen. In most wars during the last century
    where a developing nation is fighting a modern great power, the
    developing nation have had at least _some_ access to modern weaponry
    produced other places. Or at the very least stolen from the invaders.

    It also depends on the situation and what the "primitives" want to
    accomplish. If you picture a spearman phalanx and a tank platoon on
    opposite sides of a large field and then a battle between them, there
    is nothing to do for the spearmen exept run. A bronze-age civilization
    defending themselves against an invading army with access to tanks is
    a different situation - there are things that can be done to slow down
    the invader, and to inflict if not exactly heavy losses then at least
    enough losses to make a democracy unwilling to keep pursuing the war.

    >Lets also asume that after half occupation anti tank weapons would
    >be available at least for special forces.
    >
    >Lets asume that enemy tank comander thinks that they could do nil
    >against tanks and act in accordance to that idea.
    >Lets asume that military tactic is unrestricted for defending site,
    >and they'd have some time for preparations.

    A textbook way of ambushing an armored column is about as follows:
    - You find a narrow stretch of road. Preferably narrow enough so two
    tanks cannot pass each other, at least too narrow for a vehicle to
    turn.
    - You build a stockade or ditch or something similar just around a
    bend in the road. Minefields works too.
    - When the first vehicle in the column comes around the bend and
    stops for the stockade, (or runs into a mine) the rest of the column
    is likely to drive on a little before the order to stop comes trough -
    in effect, the whole column contracts. This is Good.
    - When the last vehicle has stopped as well, you fire AT weapons at
    it, immobilizing it and plugging the road behind the column.
    - You fire at will at the stopped vehicles until the enemy manages to
    compose themselves, or get reinforcements.
    You slink into the woods.

    And of course, in true guerillia fashion you generally avoid attacking
    the enemy spearhead of strong armoured coloums. You let the vanguard
    pass, and attack the supply convoys instead.

    Having marksmen sniping at tank commanders as they stick their head
    out is also a nice way of reducing enemy morale. I assume this becomes
    steadily less effective as tanks are equipped with better sensors so
    the commanders can stay down more.

    All of this depends on access to some firearms, AT weapons and
    explosives in general. And of course roadblocks are ineffective in
    terrain where the tanks can drive anywhere off the road. Tanks are
    most powerful in flat, open landscapes. In more forested or
    mountaineus terrain tanks are a a lot less effective, and easier to
    stop.


    Anyway, the most effective weapon when fighting an enemy using
    guerillia tactics is not tanks, but helicopters - both gunships and
    troop transports.


    --
    Johan Utne Poppe
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Johan Poppe wrote:
    > Raghar wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >>how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >
    >
    > Short answer: they can't.
    > Longer answer: see below.
    >
    >
    >>I'm probably more interested in discusion of tactic that could be
    >>used by smart commander when he is attacked by tank platoon.
    >>So to don't act completely free of restriction, lets asume Civ3
    >>situation a civilization that has few tanks pieces attack another
    >>more populated that is packed by spearmans. There were NO transfers
    >>of explosives sooner than xxxx weeks before attack, and lets asume
    >>that an obtained explosives would be late.
    >
    >
    > You can assume lots of things. In the end the result depends more on
    > those assumptions than on the starting question of "tanks vs
    > spearmen".
    >
    > In reality, a situation where a "pure" bronze age spearman phalanx
    > without any guns or explosives meets a modern tank platoon is
    > extremely unlikely to happen. In most wars during the last century
    > where a developing nation is fighting a modern great power, the
    > developing nation have had at least _some_ access to modern weaponry
    > produced other places. Or at the very least stolen from the invaders.
    >
    > It also depends on the situation and what the "primitives" want to
    > accomplish. If you picture a spearman phalanx and a tank platoon on
    > opposite sides of a large field and then a battle between them, there
    > is nothing to do for the spearmen exept run. A bronze-age civilization
    > defending themselves against an invading army with access to tanks is
    > a different situation - there are things that can be done to slow down
    > the invader, and to inflict if not exactly heavy losses then at least
    > enough losses to make a democracy unwilling to keep pursuing the war.
    >
    >
    >>Lets also asume that after half occupation anti tank weapons would
    >>be available at least for special forces.
    >>
    >>Lets asume that enemy tank comander thinks that they could do nil
    >>against tanks and act in accordance to that idea.
    >>Lets asume that military tactic is unrestricted for defending site,
    >>and they'd have some time for preparations.
    >
    >
    > A textbook way of ambushing an armored column is about as follows:
    > - You find a narrow stretch of road. Preferably narrow enough so two
    > tanks cannot pass each other, at least too narrow for a vehicle to
    > turn.
    > - You build a stockade or ditch or something similar just around a
    > bend in the road. Minefields works too.
    > - When the first vehicle in the column comes around the bend and
    > stops for the stockade, (or runs into a mine) the rest of the column
    > is likely to drive on a little before the order to stop comes trough -
    > in effect, the whole column contracts. This is Good.
    > - When the last vehicle has stopped as well, you fire AT weapons at
    > it, immobilizing it and plugging the road behind the column.
    > - You fire at will at the stopped vehicles until the enemy manages to
    > compose themselves, or get reinforcements.
    > You slink into the woods.
    >
    > And of course, in true guerillia fashion you generally avoid attacking
    > the enemy spearhead of strong armoured coloums. You let the vanguard
    > pass, and attack the supply convoys instead.
    >
    > Having marksmen sniping at tank commanders as they stick their head
    > out is also a nice way of reducing enemy morale. I assume this becomes
    > steadily less effective as tanks are equipped with better sensors so
    > the commanders can stay down more.
    >
    > All of this depends on access to some firearms, AT weapons and
    > explosives in general. And of course roadblocks are ineffective in
    > terrain where the tanks can drive anywhere off the road. Tanks are
    > most powerful in flat, open landscapes. In more forested or
    > mountaineus terrain tanks are a a lot less effective, and easier to
    > stop.
    >
    >
    > Anyway, the most effective weapon when fighting an enemy using
    > guerillia tactics is not tanks, but helicopters - both gunships and
    > troop transports.
    >
    >

    The spear throwing Ethiopians gave the Italians all they could handle in
    WW II.

    Gary
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <7zGue.2706$B_3.960@fe05.lga>, G@nospam.com says...
    > Johan Poppe wrote:
    > > Raghar wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > >>how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    > >
    > >
    > > Short answer: they can't.
    > > Longer answer: see below.
    > >
    > >
    > >>I'm probably more interested in discusion of tactic that could be
    > >>used by smart commander when he is attacked by tank platoon.
    > >>So to don't act completely free of restriction, lets asume Civ3
    > >>situation a civilization that has few tanks pieces attack another
    > >>more populated that is packed by spearmans. There were NO transfers
    > >>of explosives sooner than xxxx weeks before attack, and lets asume
    > >>that an obtained explosives would be late.
    > >
    > >
    > > You can assume lots of things. In the end the result depends more on
    > > those assumptions than on the starting question of "tanks vs
    > > spearmen".
    > >
    > > In reality, a situation where a "pure" bronze age spearman phalanx
    > > without any guns or explosives meets a modern tank platoon is
    > > extremely unlikely to happen. In most wars during the last century
    > > where a developing nation is fighting a modern great power, the
    > > developing nation have had at least _some_ access to modern weaponry
    > > produced other places. Or at the very least stolen from the invaders.
    > >
    > > It also depends on the situation and what the "primitives" want to
    > > accomplish. If you picture a spearman phalanx and a tank platoon on
    > > opposite sides of a large field and then a battle between them, there
    > > is nothing to do for the spearmen exept run. A bronze-age civilization
    > > defending themselves against an invading army with access to tanks is
    > > a different situation - there are things that can be done to slow down
    > > the invader, and to inflict if not exactly heavy losses then at least
    > > enough losses to make a democracy unwilling to keep pursuing the war.
    > >
    > >
    > >>Lets also asume that after half occupation anti tank weapons would
    > >>be available at least for special forces.
    > >>
    > >>Lets asume that enemy tank comander thinks that they could do nil
    > >>against tanks and act in accordance to that idea.
    > >>Lets asume that military tactic is unrestricted for defending site,
    > >>and they'd have some time for preparations.
    > >
    > >
    > > A textbook way of ambushing an armored column is about as follows:
    > > - You find a narrow stretch of road. Preferably narrow enough so two
    > > tanks cannot pass each other, at least too narrow for a vehicle to
    > > turn.
    > > - You build a stockade or ditch or something similar just around a
    > > bend in the road. Minefields works too.
    > > - When the first vehicle in the column comes around the bend and
    > > stops for the stockade, (or runs into a mine) the rest of the column
    > > is likely to drive on a little before the order to stop comes trough -
    > > in effect, the whole column contracts. This is Good.
    > > - When the last vehicle has stopped as well, you fire AT weapons at
    > > it, immobilizing it and plugging the road behind the column.
    > > - You fire at will at the stopped vehicles until the enemy manages to
    > > compose themselves, or get reinforcements.
    > > You slink into the woods.
    > >
    > > And of course, in true guerillia fashion you generally avoid attacking
    > > the enemy spearhead of strong armoured coloums. You let the vanguard
    > > pass, and attack the supply convoys instead.
    > >
    > > Having marksmen sniping at tank commanders as they stick their head
    > > out is also a nice way of reducing enemy morale. I assume this becomes
    > > steadily less effective as tanks are equipped with better sensors so
    > > the commanders can stay down more.
    > >
    > > All of this depends on access to some firearms, AT weapons and
    > > explosives in general. And of course roadblocks are ineffective in
    > > terrain where the tanks can drive anywhere off the road. Tanks are
    > > most powerful in flat, open landscapes. In more forested or
    > > mountaineus terrain tanks are a a lot less effective, and easier to
    > > stop.
    > >
    > >
    > > Anyway, the most effective weapon when fighting an enemy using
    > > guerillia tactics is not tanks, but helicopters - both gunships and
    > > troop transports.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > The spear throwing Ethiopians gave the Italians all they could handle in
    > WW II.
    >
    > Gary

    I think the phalanx might make a show of it if they got some armor-
    piercing spears.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
    wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
    order to protect the symbol.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    G wrote:
    Snip
    > >
    > > Anyway, the most effective weapon when fighting an enemy using
    > > guerillia tactics is not tanks, but helicopters - both gunships and
    > > troop transports.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > The spear throwing Ethiopians gave the Italians all they could handle in
    > WW II.
    >
    > Gary

    I think you'll find that the Ethopians were equipped with rifles in the
    1930s.

    von Schmidt
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Giftzwerg wrote:
    (Snip)

    > I'm on the verge of nominating this thread for, "most looney-tunes
    > discussion of the week."
    (snip_>
    > --
    > Giftzwerg
    > ***

    So this thread might actually take the crown of the current king "My
    Ideal World War 2 Grand Strategic Game "?
    Heh.

    von Schmidt
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <11bn26sfp7vh382@corp.supernews.com>, graesser@tca.net
    says...

    > > I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > > how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >
    > The tankers can't sit in their tanks 24/7, the spearmen can just attack them
    > at night when the tankers are asleep on the ground. A man with a spear will
    > always beat an unarmed sleeping man.

    I'm on the verge of nominating this thread for, "most looney-tunes
    discussion of the week."

    But let me first just interject that the spearmen never get to ambush
    the tankers while they sleep, because earlier that evening, the tanks
    used their thermal-imaging equipment to conduct a thundering raid on the
    mud-hut village the spearmen were sleeping in, and between the beehive
    rounds, the tens of thousands of machinegun bullets, and the massive
    overrun attack, the only thing the spearmen were about that night was
    weeping, shaking their fists at their impotent idols, and burying what
    was left of their dead.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
    the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
    in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
    liberals."
    - Karl Rove
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Raghar <notfor@mail.com> wrote:
    > I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > how can spearmen attack tank platoon?

    A phalanx (a formation) is completely useless. The people manning that
    phalanx could still use smarter tactics, though. Sabotage roads, hide
    in forests, wait for a tank to come too close, and ambush them. Once
    you're on top of the tank, they can't do a whole lot against you.
    Except perhaps drive to another tank and have it machine gun everybody
    from the tank.

    In any case, expect to lose vast numbers of people, but you can win
    some fights.

    As soon as the tank commander realises he should support tanks in
    difficult terrain with some infantry, you really are dead. Modern
    infantry isn't quite as easy to surprise once they're aware of the
    danger.


    mcv.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d25128018fde67c98a0c8@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <Xns967EEAF1B79A6ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229>,
    > Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se says...
    >
    >> Or you simply sneak up and kill them when they are taking a break outside
    >> their tanks. Even more realistically: in a country where there only are
    >> spearmen the tanks won't find any gas. Just wait until they have run out
    >> and can't move and declare victory by default.
    >
    > Mighty selective environment we're imagining here; there are tanks, but
    > no supporting infantry, airpower, or logistics. How - *exactly* - did
    > these tanks appear in "spearman" country without all the things that
    > tanks need to exist?

    2nd Lieutenant + map = anything's possible. <g>

    Regards,
    Mike Kreuzer
    www.mikekreuzer.com
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:07:06 +1000, Mike Kreuzer wrote:

    > 2nd Lieutenant + map = anything's possible. <g>

    I had to clean spray off my monitor but lordy ain't that the truth.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <1119603261.540438.189920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    von Schmidt <von_schmidt@mail.com> wrote:
    >G wrote:
    >Snip
    >> >
    >> > Anyway, the most effective weapon when fighting an enemy using
    >> > guerillia tactics is not tanks, but helicopters - both gunships and
    >> > troop transports.
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >> The spear throwing Ethiopians gave the Italians all they could handle in
    >> WW II.
    >>
    >> Gary
    >
    >I think you'll find that the Ethopians were equipped with rifles in the
    >1930s.

    And let's add that Italian tanks were the laughing stock of WW2 :-)

    Cheers
    Bent D
    --
    Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
    powered by emacs
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > In article <Xns967EEAF1B79A6ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229>,
    > Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se says...
    >
    >> Or you simply sneak up and kill them when they are taking a break outside
    >> their tanks. Even more realistically: in a country where there only are
    >> spearmen the tanks won't find any gas. Just wait until they have run out
    >> and can't move and declare victory by default.
    >
    > Mighty selective environment we're imagining here; there are tanks, but
    > no supporting infantry, airpower, or logistics. How - *exactly* - did
    > these tanks appear in "spearman" country without all the things that
    > tanks need to exist?

    Tanks don't technically need airpower or supporting infantry (although
    both would be very nice indeed). They do need logistics. So have the
    spearmen attack the supplies.


    mcv.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
    news:11bmen92a5gsl06@corp.supernews.com...
    > Raghar wrote:
    >> I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >> how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >
    > Didn't you read the manual: appendix W, section 2, paragraph P? Those
    > spearmen are also carrying panzerfausts which they keep hidden in their
    > loincloths. It makes them kind of irritable, but they get to play hell
    > with any tank platoons they encounter.

    And impresses the hell out of the local girls
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Raghar" <notfor@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns967EC4039F7BRaghar@195.250.128.45...
    >I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > how can spearmen attack tank platoon?

    The Ethiopians just jammed the tracks, rolled them over and butchered the
    crews - this is not too hard to do if the 'tank' is a Cv 33, a bit harder
    with a a Challenger;-)

    > I'm probably more interested in discusion of tactic that could be
    > used by smart commander when he is attacked by tank platoon.

    Realistically, the only things they could hope to do are:

    a) attack the tank units whilst they are dismounted/laagered etc
    b) make use of defensive obstacles, tank traps etc - their success at this
    will depend on the terrain. Roll rocks, tree trunks, flaming pigs from steep
    hills?
    c) ambush the tanks supporting logistic vehicles

    I am reminded of the comment by the partisan commander in 'Unconditional
    Surrender' when asked what he was going to do about the German armoured
    column bearing down on his position. "In the face of a Germans armoued
    column we disperse. That is secret of our many great victories'.

    Martin
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    >I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >how can spearmen attack tank platoon?

    Easy. Watch Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Ewok attack on Imperial
    Guard.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    If I wanted to get my phalanx to ambush a modern tank platoon. First I
    would get my phalanx best looking wife or girlfriend, or in case of
    amazons best looking warrior to get partially undressed lay in the road
    as as a damsel in distress, wait for the tankers to get out of their
    tanks to assist said damsel and then ambush them.

    Wayne


    Johan Poppe wrote:
    > Raghar wrote:
    >
    > >I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > >how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >
    > Short answer: they can't.
    > Longer answer: see below.
    >
    > >I'm probably more interested in discusion of tactic that could be
    > >used by smart commander when he is attacked by tank platoon.
    > >So to don't act completely free of restriction, lets asume Civ3
    > >situation a civilization that has few tanks pieces attack another
    > >more populated that is packed by spearmans. There were NO transfers
    > >of explosives sooner than xxxx weeks before attack, and lets asume
    > >that an obtained explosives would be late.
    >
    > You can assume lots of things. In the end the result depends more on
    > those assumptions than on the starting question of "tanks vs
    > spearmen".
    >
    > In reality, a situation where a "pure" bronze age spearman phalanx
    > without any guns or explosives meets a modern tank platoon is
    > extremely unlikely to happen. In most wars during the last century
    > where a developing nation is fighting a modern great power, the
    > developing nation have had at least _some_ access to modern weaponry
    > produced other places. Or at the very least stolen from the invaders.
    >
    > It also depends on the situation and what the "primitives" want to
    > accomplish. If you picture a spearman phalanx and a tank platoon on
    > opposite sides of a large field and then a battle between them, there
    > is nothing to do for the spearmen exept run. A bronze-age civilization
    > defending themselves against an invading army with access to tanks is
    > a different situation - there are things that can be done to slow down
    > the invader, and to inflict if not exactly heavy losses then at least
    > enough losses to make a democracy unwilling to keep pursuing the war.
    >
    > >Lets also asume that after half occupation anti tank weapons would
    > >be available at least for special forces.
    > >
    > >Lets asume that enemy tank comander thinks that they could do nil
    > >against tanks and act in accordance to that idea.
    > >Lets asume that military tactic is unrestricted for defending site,
    > >and they'd have some time for preparations.
    >
    > A textbook way of ambushing an armored column is about as follows:
    > - You find a narrow stretch of road. Preferably narrow enough so two
    > tanks cannot pass each other, at least too narrow for a vehicle to
    > turn.
    > - You build a stockade or ditch or something similar just around a
    > bend in the road. Minefields works too.
    > - When the first vehicle in the column comes around the bend and
    > stops for the stockade, (or runs into a mine) the rest of the column
    > is likely to drive on a little before the order to stop comes trough -
    > in effect, the whole column contracts. This is Good.
    > - When the last vehicle has stopped as well, you fire AT weapons at
    > it, immobilizing it and plugging the road behind the column.
    > - You fire at will at the stopped vehicles until the enemy manages to
    > compose themselves, or get reinforcements.
    > You slink into the woods.
    >
    > And of course, in true guerillia fashion you generally avoid attacking
    > the enemy spearhead of strong armoured coloums. You let the vanguard
    > pass, and attack the supply convoys instead.
    >
    > Having marksmen sniping at tank commanders as they stick their head
    > out is also a nice way of reducing enemy morale. I assume this becomes
    > steadily less effective as tanks are equipped with better sensors so
    > the commanders can stay down more.
    >
    > All of this depends on access to some firearms, AT weapons and
    > explosives in general. And of course roadblocks are ineffective in
    > terrain where the tanks can drive anywhere off the road. Tanks are
    > most powerful in flat, open landscapes. In more forested or
    > mountaineus terrain tanks are a a lot less effective, and easier to
    > stop.
    >
    >
    > Anyway, the most effective weapon when fighting an enemy using
    > guerillia tactics is not tanks, but helicopters - both gunships and
    > troop transports.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Johan Utne Poppe
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:12:08 -0400, Giftzwerg
    <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >In article <11bn26sfp7vh382@corp.supernews.com>, graesser@tca.net
    >says...
    >
    >> > I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >> > how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >>
    >> The tankers can't sit in their tanks 24/7, the spearmen can just attack them
    >> at night when the tankers are asleep on the ground. A man with a spear will
    >> always beat an unarmed sleeping man.
    >
    >I'm on the verge of nominating this thread for, "most looney-tunes
    >discussion of the week."
    >
    >But let me first just interject that the spearmen never get to ambush
    >the tankers while they sleep, because earlier that evening, the tanks
    >used their thermal-imaging equipment

    Tanks were around long before they had thermal imaging equipment.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:MPG.1d25128018fde67c98a0c8@news-east.giganews.com:

    > In article <Xns967EEAF1B79A6ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229>,
    > Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se says...
    >
    >> Or you simply sneak up and kill them when they are taking a
    >> break outside their tanks. Even more realistically: in a
    >> country where there only are spearmen the tanks won't find any
    >> gas. Just wait until they have run out and can't move and
    >> declare victory by default.
    >
    > Mighty selective environment we're imagining here; there are
    > tanks, but no supporting infantry, airpower, or logistics. How
    > - *exactly* - did these tanks appear in "spearman" country
    > without all the things that tanks need to exist?
    >

    They invaded?

    You could have tanks without airpower. You know there were
    countries that didn't use a wheel, but used waterways instead.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    The spearmen simply jab the tankers through the vision slots. Just like the
    English archers did to the French knights at Agincourt. Either that or
    through the hatches the factories forgot to put locks on...

    Now, the real question. How do the spearmen sink battleships????????

    Dirk

    "john graesser" <graesser@tca.net> wrote in message
    news:11bn26sfp7vh382@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > "Raghar" <notfor@mail.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns967EC4039F7BRaghar@195.250.128.45...
    >> I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >> how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >
    > The tankers can't sit in their tanks 24/7, the spearmen can just attack
    > them
    > at night when the tankers are asleep on the ground. A man with a spear
    > will
    > always beat an unarmed sleeping man.
    >
    >
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    world domination, Mike Kreuzer mentioned

    >"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:MPG.1d25128018fde67c98a0c8@news-east.giganews.com...
    >> In article <Xns967EEAF1B79A6ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229>,
    >> Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se says...
    >>
    >>> Or you simply sneak up and kill them when they are taking a break outside
    >>> their tanks. Even more realistically: in a country where there only are
    >>> spearmen the tanks won't find any gas. Just wait until they have run out
    >>> and can't move and declare victory by default.
    >>
    >> Mighty selective environment we're imagining here; there are tanks, but
    >> no supporting infantry, airpower, or logistics. How - *exactly* - did
    >> these tanks appear in "spearman" country without all the things that
    >> tanks need to exist?
    >
    >2nd Lieutenant + map = anything's possible. <g>
    >
    >Regards,
    >Mike Kreuzer
    >www.mikekreuzer.com
    >

    Infantryman One "Look out, here comes Wodney again."
    Infantryman Two "Run for your life, he's got a map!!"
    ..
    ..
    "When in danger or in doubt,
    Run in circles, scream and shout"
    ..
    It's not just a management tool,
    It's a philosophy for living!!
    ..
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    world domination, Johan Poppe mentioned

    >A textbook way of ambushing an armored column is about as follows:
    > - You find a narrow stretch of road. Preferably narrow enough so two
    >tanks cannot pass each other, at least too narrow for a vehicle to
    >turn.
    > - You build a stockade or ditch or something similar just around a
    >bend in the road. Minefields works too.

    The pre-explosive era techniqe would go similarly but use your spears
    to roll rocks down on them, boys, BIG rocks and lots and lots of 'em.
    Then run away and hide a lot because they're going to be irritated.
    ..
    ..
    "When in danger or in doubt,
    Run in circles, scream and shout"
    ..
    It's not just a management tool,
    It's a philosophy for living!!
    ..
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    There are simple and more complicated to kill a tank.
    Basically, a tank needs Air, fuel, exhaust, electricity and cooling.
    Basically you can disable a tank by cutting off the oxygen supply. The easy
    way to do this is to firebomb the air intake. Then the tank stops dead. If
    you nanage to burn through to the fuel lines, it won't start again.
    To stop the thing firing shells, deforming the barel or causing the shell to
    jam is a dead cert to cause havoc. On older tanks, a flammable fluid down
    the barel after firing would get into the compartment.
    These same tanks often have excape hatches underneath.
    Enough strong chains and you can make a tank flip itself over.
    A major potato up the exhaust can cause serious trouble too, not to mention
    sugar or sand in the tank if you're brave enough to get on top.
    A ditch is probably the worst way I can think of to disable a tank.
    Preferred method:
    Flip 1st in column with chains in a tight passage
    Firebomb last tank.
    Jam barels and firebomb the rest.
    Next method - deplete using units as bait.
    cb


    --
    =================================
    Some people have something to say... others have to say something!
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    world domination, Dirk Gross mentioned

    >The spearmen simply jab the tankers through the vision slots. Just like the
    >English archers did to the French knights at Agincourt. Either that or
    >through the hatches the factories forgot to put locks on...
    >
    >Now, the real question. How do the spearmen sink battleships????????
    >
    >Dirk
    >

    No No No, the real, the ABSOLUTE, ULTIMATE question has to be "How can
    a phalanx of spearmen take out a Fractional Orbit Bombardment System?"

    Then get them to do it without taking losses.

    Then take away their spears and make them do it with rolled up wet
    towels (you have to know where your towel is).

    >"john graesser" <graesser@tca.net> wrote in message
    >news:11bn26sfp7vh382@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >> "Raghar" <notfor@mail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns967EC4039F7BRaghar@195.250.128.45...
    >>> I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >>> how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >>
    >> The tankers can't sit in their tanks 24/7, the spearmen can just attack
    >> them
    >> at night when the tankers are asleep on the ground. A man with a spear
    >> will
    >> always beat an unarmed sleeping man.
    >>
    >>
    >

    ..
    ..
    "When in danger or in doubt,
    Run in circles, scream and shout"
    ..
    It's not just a management tool,
    It's a philosophy for living!!
    ..
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:49:18 GMT, "Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote:

    >The spearmen simply jab the tankers through the vision slots. Just like the
    >English archers did to the French knights at Agincourt. Either that or
    >through the hatches the factories forgot to put locks on...
    >
    >Now, the real question. How do the spearmen sink battleships????????

    The battleships run aground on reefs on the coastline as they try to
    get close enough to bombard the inland spearmen.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <1119654957.115002.41860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    pauls2272@yahoo.com says...

    > >I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    > >how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >
    > Easy. Watch Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Ewok attack on Imperial
    > Guard.

    Had the force-field station been guarded by any competent group of
    tankers ever fielded, the only serious issue would have been whether
    Ewok pelts made good rugs.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
    the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
    in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
    liberals."
    - Karl Rove
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <d9i2v7$6do$04$1@news.t-online.com>, christoforos@Notmail.com
    says...

    > A major potato up the exhaust can cause serious trouble too, not to mention
    > sugar or sand in the tank if you're brave enough to get on top.

    Clearly you're not a "Mythbusters" fan.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
    the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
    in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
    liberals."
    - Karl Rove
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Giftzwerg wrote:
    > In article <1119654957.115002.41860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > pauls2272@yahoo.com says...
    >
    >>
    >>Easy. Watch Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Ewok attack on Imperial
    >>Guard.
    >
    >
    > Had the force-field station been guarded by any competent group of
    > tankers ever fielded, the only serious issue would have been whether
    > Ewok pelts made good rugs.
    >

    Hats!
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On 24 Jun 2005 16:15:57 -0700, pauls2272@yahoo.com wrote:

    >>I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >>how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >
    >Easy. Watch Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Ewok attack on Imperial
    >Guard.

    Yeah, but in this case the opponent was dumb enough to use "tanks"
    that walked on fragile legs, with armor so thin it could be crushed by
    a tree stump... any 20th century armored division could've defeated
    the mighty Imperial ground forces in no time!

    And the Ewoks, too. God, I hate Ewoks.
    --
    http://www.kynosarges.de
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Christoph Nahr wrote:
    > On 24 Jun 2005 16:15:57 -0700, pauls2272@yahoo.com wrote:
    >>
    >>Easy. Watch Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Ewok attack on Imperial
    >>Guard.
    >
    >
    > Yeah, but in this case the opponent was dumb enough to use "tanks"
    > that walked on fragile legs, with armor so thin it could be crushed by
    > a tree stump... any 20th century armored division could've defeated
    > the mighty Imperial ground forces in no time!
    >
    > And the Ewoks, too. God, I hate Ewoks.

    They taste great, barbecued. And their skins make good hats.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Christoph Nahr <christoph.nahr@kynosarges.de> wrote:
    > On 24 Jun 2005 16:15:57 -0700, pauls2272@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    >>>I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >>>how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >>
    >>Easy. Watch Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Ewok attack on Imperial
    >>Guard.
    >
    > Yeah, but in this case the opponent was dumb enough to use "tanks"
    > that walked on fragile legs, with armor so thin it could be crushed by
    > a tree stump... any 20th century armored division could've defeated
    > the mighty Imperial ground forces in no time!

    I don't think a 20th century armoured division would do so well in a
    dense jungle like that. Legs are much better in jungles than wheels.
    So technically the idea of a walking light tank isn't all that crazy.
    And there are plenty of other light military vehicles that wouldn't
    survive being smashed by a few tons of wood.


    mcv.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <42bd37de$0$41546$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, mcvmcv@xs4all.nl
    says...

    > > Yeah, but in this case the opponent was dumb enough to use "tanks"
    > > that walked on fragile legs, with armor so thin it could be crushed by
    > > a tree stump... any 20th century armored division could've defeated
    > > the mighty Imperial ground forces in no time!
    >
    > I don't think a 20th century armoured division would do so well in a
    > dense jungle like that. Legs are much better in jungles than wheels.
    > So technically the idea of a walking light tank isn't all that crazy.
    > And there are plenty of other light military vehicles that wouldn't
    > survive being smashed by a few tons of wood.

    The whole thing is silly. Clearly the technology of the day includes
    anti-gravity equipment, so tracks or wheels - or "legs" - are *a priori*
    unnecessary; an Imperial Heavy Tank *should* simply glide over the
    ground on some Magic Carpet exactly as other vehicles in the films do.

    Sci-fi films are forever falling into this trap; they fail to think
    through the implications of the stuff they willy-nilly depict, and end
    up with a technology base that makes no sense at all.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
    the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
    in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
    liberals."
    - Karl Rove
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
    > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:49:18 GMT, "Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote:
    >
    >>The spearmen simply jab the tankers through the vision slots. Just like the
    >>English archers did to the French knights at Agincourt. Either that or
    >>through the hatches the factories forgot to put locks on...
    >>
    >>Now, the real question. How do the spearmen sink battleships????????
    >
    > The battleships run aground on reefs on the coastline as they try to
    > get close enough to bombard the inland spearmen.

    If the battleship gets too close to the coast, use the cover of night
    to swim to the ship and climb aboard. If you do that with a million
    spearmen, at some point the ship will sink due to the sheer weight of
    people.


    mcv.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Chris Berry" <christoforos@Notmail.com> wrote in
    news:d9i2v7$6do$04$1@news.t-online.com:
    > A major potato up the exhaust can cause serious trouble too, not to
    > mention sugar or sand in the tank if you're brave enough to get on
    > top.

    A potato doesn't even stop an ordinary car, the exhaust pressure is too
    great. Some really sticky mud might do it, I guess. Sugar is also useless
    against cars. I saw an experiment on TV where they first tried to put sugar
    in the tank only to find it just lay there, so they went a bit further and
    added it directly at the carburator. The engine sounded a bit strange, but
    it ran as usual. Unless tanks are far more sensitive than an old Volvo
    Amazon they should survive it too.

    > A ditch is probably the worst way I can think of to disable a
    > tank.

    The advantage is you don't have to get close to the tank, nor have access
    to extremely strong chains (which may be problematic for a bronze age unit,
    or indeed any isolated partisan group).
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On 25 Jun 2005 01:27:01 -0500, Miowarra Tomokatu <not@thistime.net>
    wrote:

    >No No No, the real, the ABSOLUTE, ULTIMATE question has to be "How can
    >a phalanx of spearmen take out a Fractional Orbit Bombardment System?"

    Somebody's been playing Civilization 1 again...
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Christoph Nahr <christoph.nahr@kynosarges.de> wrote in
    news:99vpb1ls0osr0qouci8bqfinqdrehmvjho@4ax.com:

    > On 24 Jun 2005 16:15:57 -0700, pauls2272@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    >>>I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some
    >>>idea how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >>
    >>Easy. Watch Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Ewok attack on
    >>Imperial Guard.
    >
    > Yeah, but in this case the opponent was dumb enough to use
    > "tanks" that walked on fragile legs, with armor so thin it could
    > be crushed by a tree stump... any 20th century armored division
    > could've defeated the mighty Imperial ground forces in no time!
    >
    > And the Ewoks, too. God, I hate Ewoks.


    So be happy that overpowered monsters were significantly lessened
    in numbers. Acording to astronomy calculation, the Death star has
    too low energy to orbit and was held by suspensor lifts on its
    place. Even before explosion armor and other components didn't have
    enough energy for correct orbit. So all that armor and majority of
    supersturcture fall on the planet. Few billion tons.
    Some of them might survive, they are overpowered monsters anyway,
    and they might kill Leia and Luke for that bombardment.
    They lied to them don't you remmember?

    SW :7 new hope - kill the Luke.
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote in
    news:yd%ue.12025$IL3.9993@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:

    > The spearmen simply jab the tankers through the vision slots.
    > Just like the English archers did to the French knights at
    > Agincourt. Either that or through the hatches the factories
    > forgot to put locks on...
    >
    > Now, the real question. How do the spearmen sink
    > battleships????????
    >
    > Dirk
    >
    plan a. They don't, they can't swim.

    plan b. The other possibility is poke capitain to the head by a
    spear, and give to rest of the ship the right orders. (Those orders
    differ if there is just ONE spearman, or if the rest of the ship
    was caputred similar way, and rest of the spearmans is doing clean
    up with help of captured weapons.)

    This was rather simple question. Battleships are one strong target,
    and majority of battleships can't walk on land.
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Thomas Palm <Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se> wrote in
    news:Xns967EEAF1B79A6ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229:

    > Raghar <notfor@mail.com> wrote in news:Xns967EC4039F7BRaghar@
    > 195.250.128.45:
    >
    >> I know it's rather problematic topic, but do anyone have some idea
    >> how can spearmen attack tank platoon?
    >
    > Read "High Crusade" by Paul Anderson whare a bunch of crusaders are
    > kidnapped by aliens and proceed to take over the galactic empire using
    > old tactics with new weapons.

    Actually they successfully attacked the alien vessel that landed and
    wanted to use it as a troop transport vessel to Palestine by forcing
    some surviving alien to pilot the thing and subsequently got lost
    between the stars. The key weapon in the attack was not the spear, but
    the English longbow. They managed to take over the alien empire by such
    novel ideas as using trebuchets for hurling nukes :) - great stuff

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx


    --
    "Ceterum censeo Belgicam delendam."
    (Cato, 'Pro Gerolphe')
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > In article <42bd37de$0$41546$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, mcvmcv@xs4all.nl
    > says...
    >
    >> > Yeah, but in this case the opponent was dumb enough to use "tanks"
    >> > that walked on fragile legs, with armor so thin it could be crushed by
    >> > a tree stump... any 20th century armored division could've defeated
    >> > the mighty Imperial ground forces in no time!
    >>
    >> I don't think a 20th century armoured division would do so well in a
    >> dense jungle like that. Legs are much better in jungles than wheels.
    >> So technically the idea of a walking light tank isn't all that crazy.
    >> And there are plenty of other light military vehicles that wouldn't
    >> survive being smashed by a few tons of wood.
    >
    > The whole thing is silly. Clearly the technology of the day includes
    > anti-gravity equipment, so tracks or wheels - or "legs" - are *a priori*
    > unnecessary; an Imperial Heavy Tank *should* simply glide over the
    > ground on some Magic Carpet exactly as other vehicles in the films do.

    You've got a very good point there. But in the absense of anti-grav
    and in the presence of good walker tech, it would have made at least
    some sense. But in the end, all that counts is if it looks good. And
    I like walkers.


    mcv.
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > In article <d9i2v7$6do$04$1@news.t-online.com>, christoforos@Notmail.com
    > says...
    >
    >> A major potato up the exhaust can cause serious trouble too, not to mention
    >> sugar or sand in the tank if you're brave enough to get on top.
    >
    > Clearly you're not a "Mythbusters" fan.

    Great show, that.


    mcv.
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <Xns9681581944C6Aeddysterckxhotmailco@67.98.68.34>,
    eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

    > Actually they successfully attacked the alien vessel that landed and
    > wanted to use it as a troop transport vessel to Palestine by forcing
    > some surviving alien to pilot the thing and subsequently got lost
    > between the stars. The key weapon in the attack was not the spear, but
    > the English longbow. They managed to take over the alien empire by such
    > novel ideas as using trebuchets for hurling nukes :) - great stuff

    ...whereas the concept of using transporters to send across a nice nuke
    doesn't seem ever to have occured to the various Enterprise crews!

    - Gerry Quinn
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Gerry Quinn schrieb:
    > In article <Xns9681581944C6Aeddysterckxhotmailco@67.98.68.34>,
    > eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
    >
    >
    >>Actually they successfully attacked the alien vessel that landed and
    >>wanted to use it as a troop transport vessel to Palestine by forcing
    >>some surviving alien to pilot the thing and subsequently got lost
    >>between the stars. The key weapon in the attack was not the spear, but
    >>the English longbow. They managed to take over the alien empire by such
    >>novel ideas as using trebuchets for hurling nukes :) - great stuff
    >
    >
    > ..whereas the concept of using transporters to send across a nice nuke
    > doesn't seem ever to have occured to the various Enterprise crews!

    Didn?t they use the transport (in the original Enterprise with Shatner)
    to put an antimatterbomb into some sort of vampiric fog that had already
    killed several crewmen?

    In ship to ship combat as far as I understood no transport was possible
    as long as the shields were up.
    bye
    Michael
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d28b98724608f3c98a22b@news.indigo.ie>,
    gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie says...

    > > Actually they successfully attacked the alien vessel that landed and
    > > wanted to use it as a troop transport vessel to Palestine by forcing
    > > some surviving alien to pilot the thing and subsequently got lost
    > > between the stars. The key weapon in the attack was not the spear, but
    > > the English longbow. They managed to take over the alien empire by such
    > > novel ideas as using trebuchets for hurling nukes :) - great stuff
    >
    > ..whereas the concept of using transporters to send across a nice nuke
    > doesn't seem ever to have occured to the various Enterprise crews!

    But it did occur to the designers of the STAR FLEET BATTLES line of
    games, and Transporter Bombs are a common element.

    They're not as much fun as you might think, in that you have to be
    fairly close and drop a shield to dispatch one - and a dropped shield is
    likely to attract an astounding array of incoming ordnance, all of which
    is fairly lethal at close quarters.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
    the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
    in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
    liberals."
    - Karl Rove
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Raymond Martineau wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:10:07 +0100, Gerry Quinn
    > <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <Xns9681581944C6Aeddysterckxhotmailco@67.98.68.34>,
    > >eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
    > >
    > >> Actually they successfully attacked the alien vessel that landed and
    > >> wanted to use it as a troop transport vessel to Palestine by forcing
    > >> some surviving alien to pilot the thing and subsequently got lost
    > >> between the stars. The key weapon in the attack was not the spear, but
    > >> the English longbow. They managed to take over the alien empire by such
    > >> novel ideas as using trebuchets for hurling nukes :) - great stuff
    > >
    > >..whereas the concept of using transporters to send across a nice nuke
    > >doesn't seem ever to have occured to the various Enterprise crews!
    > >
    >
    > Transporters do not normally work through shields. (How on Earth they
    > beamed onto a Borg cube is beyond me.)

    Well figure it this way. The Borg wish to assimilate people.
    Assimilating radioactive space dust is hard. Assimilating boarders is
    relatively easy. Why would you try to blow them to pieces and prevent
    boarders ? 8)
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games IBM Video Games