New units Tank Hunters

[Huib Versloot]

A question. Do we need new units like Tank Hunter sections? Aren't these units already incorporated in regular companies' platoons allbeit abstracted? The same can be said about Light MG sections in rifle platoons.
And if we use them how many? One tankhunter squad per company (too many if you ask me), one per Batalion (perhaps in the heavy company) or do they just belong in the Regimental 13th and 14th companies. (German OOB used as example, but for the allied side the question would be similar).
Or should we only use them when there is evidence that special tank hunter sections were formed as was the case in the southern Bulge on 16th and 17th Dec 1944.

Interested in opinions.

Huib

[Krec]

I dont see a problem with added them. Personally i would like to as many units represented as possible.

[Jason Petho]

A question. Do we need new units like Tank Hunter sections? Aren't these units already incorporated in regular companies' platoons allbeit abstracted? The same can be said about Light MG sections in rifle platoons.
And if we use them how many? One tankhunter squad per company (too many if you ask me), one per Batalion (perhaps in the heavy company) or do they just belong in the Regimental 13th and 14th companies. (German OOB used as example, but for the allied side the question would be similar).
Or should we only use them when there is evidence that special tank hunter sections were formed as was the case in the southern Bulge on 16th and 17th Dec 1944.

Interested in opinions.

Huib

Like many of the new units (scouts, snipers, various engineers, etc), they are to be used in circumstances where the designer deems them appropriate.

Jason Petho

[Guderian]

I do not have the Matrix edition of CS, but I remember tank hunters in PB#1. I think tank hunter units are okay (based on my very limited experience playing with them), but I do disagree with how they are rated. If I recall correctly, the tank hunter units have a defense of 7 and an assault rating of 1. This makes them too tenacious IMO. Instead, they should be rated similarly to Russian ATR platoons, i.e. defense of 4 and an assault rating of 0. Note to Germaphiles that I am not advocating a reduction in their hard attack value, but, as they are rated now, they are as resilient as a larger infantry platoon and can take place in assaults too because they have an assault rating of 1. This can result in ahistorical results IMO. For example, a tank hunter (which I believe is only comprised of 6-12 men) unit can now hold a 250 meter hex as effectively as any other platoon. They can also assault larger infantry platoons, and anything else for that matter due to the screwy assault rules, and win, regularly. Tank hunters are support units, not line units. They can be used as line units, but they should'nt be as effective as line units in that role. For example, mortars don't have an assault rating I don't think. I think of tank hunters as the same thing against tanks as mortars are against infantry. My 2 cents.

[Mike Abberton]

Whether they can assault or not should depend a little on what time frame we are talking about. Based on the units available in Combat Mission, tank hunters are small groups (deployed as 2-3 man teams) armed with antitank weaponry.

The early war versions in CM are 2 man teams with grenades, anti-tank grenades (panzerwurf or the soviet equivalent, one of the RPG series), and SMGs, all of which are assault-range weapons. So, some sort of assault factor seems appropriate. Their defense might be a little high, though.

Late war tank hunter type units in CM are mostly panzershreck/bazooka/ATR type units with longer stand-off ranges, which probably shouldn't have an assault factor.