Sherman versus Tiger. Day Three.

My friend Norm Lunde is our guest blogger today. He read this week's reenactment stuff, and offered his article on the same theme. In other words, how many Shermans does it take to knock out a Tiger? Today we'll answer that question using Peter Bogdasarian's brilliant design, Tank on Tank. The following article originally appeared in Line of Fire 8.

Tank on Tank

It’s Sherman versus Tiger in this discussion of Tank on Tank tactics.

By Norm Lunde

My favorite way to test-drive a new armor game is with a simple scenario that I call "Taming the Tiger." The basic idea is to determine how many Shermans are required to knock out a Tiger I in a more or less balanced fight. The exercise demonstrates how well the game mechanics present the relative strengths and weaknesses of very different tanks. Does the game portray the superior firepower and heavier armor of the Tiger? Does it also highlight the excellent mobility of the Sherman? Can the American player use that mobility to advantage by closing the range quickly and outflanking the Tiger?

 As I play the game, I also consider balance between determinism and variability in the results.  Is it flat-out impossible for a single Sherman to kill the Tiger with a lucky shot? Is it too easy? What about two Shermans? Ideally there should be some tipping point where adding one more Sherman produces approximately even chances of winning. Peter Bogdasarian's Tank on Tank is such an accessible and intuitive game that it doesn't take long to evaluate a Sherman versus Tiger encounter.

Let's start with Map A. Suppose that a single Tiger is perched atop the hill in hex F4, facing North. This will be our baseline setup.

Now imagine that the American force consists of a single Sherman tank. We don't expect this to be a fair fight, but we have to start somewhere. The Sherman will enter from the North map edge on  turn one. Since there is nothing for the Tiger to do until it has some targets, we may as well give the Sherman the first move.

With a single tank, the American player can use only two APs per turn (one to move, one to shoot.) So he decides to charge right in and close the range, entering at F1 and advancing to F2 on his first AP. He uses the second AP to take a shot at the Tiger. He'll need 11+ on 2d6+1 roll, with a roughly 11% chance of success. At those odds, it might take ten turns of continuous fire to score that lucky hit. (With a single Sherman on the board, it's impossible to get a flanking shot on the Tiger. The Tiger will simply use one of its AP each turn to pivot in place. By way of contrast, the Tiger needs a 9+ on 2d6+1, roughly 42%. At those odds, the lone Sherman has only two or three turns to live.

What about two Shermans? With two units on the board, the American player now has some interesting tactical options. The obvious question is, should the pair of tanks stick together or split up? As in any good wargame, unit cohesion has its advantages. In Tank on Tank, the benefit comes in the form of HQ units, which can activate neighboring units (for movement purposes) without costing additional APs. Let us stipulate that one of the Shermans is an HQ unit. Since we're using the solitaire rule for AP determination (p.7), we know that each side is guaranteed a minimum of two APs per turn, with up to four AP possible.  Two APs are enough to move both Shermans independently, but we'll need one more AP to take a shot at the Tiger. Since both Shermans can fire together for the cost of one AP, even if they are separated, we'll never need more than three AP per turn.

Why split them up? Well, with two maneuver elements it's much easier to outflank the enemy. If we can get the Shermans into opposing hexes (say, G4 and E5), at least one of them will always be in position to flank the Tiger. Sure, the Tiger can pull back, but the Shermans are faster—2 MP in clear terrain versus 1 MP for the Tiger. They will catch him eventually, especially if they take advantage of the +1 MP bonus for staying on the road. Since we're likely to get at least three AP most of the time, it's tempting to gamble and go for the envelopment.

Let's try it. On turn one the Americans once again have the initiative. They use their first AP to bring the first Sherman onto the board at G1, advancing to G3 (remember the road bonus.) The second AP is used to bring Sherman #2 in at D1, advancing to D3 along that road. The

Americans roll for their third AP... success! Now both Shermans fire together, needing 11 on 2d6+2 = 28%. The Tiger commander is starting to get nervous. He can survive three, maybe four turns of this, but that isn't going to happen. On the next turn, one of the Shermans will be in position for a flanking shot, which drives the odds up to 11 on 2d6+3 = 42%. Look at that—the odds have evened up! Of course, there's an excellent chance (42%) that one of the Shermans will no longer be around next turn, in which case the Tiger's fortunes will improve considerably. I'm still betting on the Tiger.

With three Shermans on the march, the Tiger will really start to sweat. Let's bring the first of them (a regular Sherman) in along the road from G1-G3 on the first activation. The second Sherman will enter at D1-D3 as before. Now the Americans roll for a third AP... success! The third Sherman (HQ) enters on the road at G1, advancing to G2, where he stops right behind the lead tank. (Stacking is not permitted in Tank on Tank.) Notice that the Americans had to spend three AP just to get all of their units onto the board. (The HQ bonus only works for units that are already deployed.) Chances are, there won't be any AP left to shoot this turn. The Tiger will get one free shot (still at 42%). With a little luck, the Tiger will reduce the three-tank problem to a two-tank problem (which he already knows how to solve) on the first turn.

Suppose the Tiger misses the free throw. He may well end up in a very sticky situation:

The Americans used their first AP to activate the Sherman HQ for movement, which also activated the adjacent Sherman.  The HQ moved off-road into E3, but the lead tank made an end run to G5 by way of H4, taking advantage of the road bonus again. On the second AP, the third Sherman advanced along the road to E5. Now they can roll for a third AP to shoot (with a 67% chance of getting it.)

With Shermans at E5, F3, and G5, the Tiger will receive a flank shot no matter which way he turns. Moreover, he's got to kill three Shermans, whereas they only need to kill him once. A prudent Panzer leader would be considering a retrograde movement at this point, perhaps toward the town at E6 or the woods in F7. But he can't outrun the dogs nipping at his heels.

What about four Shermans? Well, we could imagine grouping them in pairs, with one HQ per pair, if available. That would provide two equally strong maneuver elements that could be

handled in two activations. If we are dealing with a historically representative platoon of four tanks under one HQ, the incremental addition of one more tank will be offset by the limited availability of AP to control it. This would tend to encourage us to group two subordinate tanks under the HQ, and send the fourth Sherman along an independent route as before. The tactics are similar, but the extra firepower begins to tell against the Tiger (11 on 2d6+4 = 58%.)

So, what have we learned about Tank on Tank? We've seen that, one-on-one, the Sherman is clearly no match for the Tiger. However, with the opportunity to coordinate maneuvers using their superior mobility, two Shermans have a fighting chance. Thus, the game system portrays the disparate capabilities of the opposing tanks in ways that have real tactical consequences. Moreover, the game rewards real historical tactics, like maneuvering for a flank shot. With a modest bit of luck, three Shermans can easily outflank the Tiger (if they survive long enough to do it) without overwhelming the capacity of one platoon commander. At those odds, the Tiger will be forced to either fight at a disadvantage, or withdraw. This appears to be the tipping point where the outcome is decided by random chance—the proverbial fair fight. Beyond that, each additional Sherman provides a diminishing return due to the limitations of command and control as represented in the game.

I like Tank on Tank. It doesn't attempt to match the gritty squad-level skirmishes of a game like Lock ‘n Load Publishing's flagship product, or even the more abstract but no less authentic company-sized battles of World at War/White Star Rising games.  However, Tank on Tank does offer a satisfying level of tactical nuance (and historically plausible outcomes) for a much smaller investment of your time. 

Be sure to check out NIGHT OF MAN, a science-fiction, card-driven, board and counter, tactical battle game, designed by Mark H. Walker and published by Flying Pig Games. It is on Kickstarter until December 31st. You can view the Kickstarter page and place a pledge right here.