Defeating a tank with a spearman *is* realistic...

[zeeter]

If I remember correctly... in Saving Ryan's private... huh!!! private ryan,,, they beat a tank with socks... so following the logics that goes with it, it might happens that spearman beat tanks...

They'd have to have chemistry and scientific method, too, as they put a bomb in the sock and dipped it in axel grease.

 

[zeeter]

The reason I defend the spearmen so much in these discussions is as follows: What's it matter? Are you basing your whole offensive charge on that one tank that somehow lost to the spearmen? You can't afford to lose one tank? Even two?
And furthermore, the name and picture of the spearmen are just graphical representations of a number. They mean nothing. You guys keep saying things like they'll run away at the sight of a tank. They'll throw thousands of spears at it all day and it'll do nothing. Let's use some logic here. Despite the fact that the unit name is "spearmen" that doesn't mean that they're stupid people just a step above cavemen. Be reasonable.
Instead of playing the game, you guys should just get a pen and paper, write down your tech tree, give yourselves about a 10% variation, and just assume that you've won rather than wasting a few hours having fun with the game. Because if everything has got to be finite, such as a modern unit ALWAYS beats an ancient one, then what's the point in playing?

 

[jar2574]

I have never seen a tank get beaten by a spearman in Civ IV. I don't think it occurs as often as in Civ III.

 

[Eigenvector]

I've seen it, not often, but I have seen it. I've also seen archers defeat gunships, elephants defeat tanks, spearmen defeat infantry, and catapults defeat artillery. Not often mind you, but I have seen it.

This forum seems to be populated by the great masters of hyperbole.

 

[Methos]

Would they be HE or SABOT spearheads though ?

This is someone who knows something about tanks. 19K perhaps? Or just an M1A1 enthusiast?

the gunners m2 can be pointed up or all 6 crew would get out and fire.

It’s four crew, not six.

I've always found these debates humorous.

 

[KingCruz]

I have never seen a tank get beaten by a spearman in Civ IV. I don't think it occurs as often as in Civ III.

My tank got beat by a Barb Longbow on settler...

 

[Ogrelord]

obviously the Spearman can defeat the Tank.
The Spearman was created in the bronze age, about maybe 2 500 BC, lets says.
And the tank was created in the year lets say 1900 AD.

The Spearman has been fighting for 4 400 years . He has countless training drills, participate and survives numerous wars. He polishes his spear so often that it's sharper than industrial diamonds. The Spearman for over 4 millennium has learned all fighting forms from pancreas to Thai kick boxing to Jitjutsu. He has learned all military tactics and strategy over the ages. He was there when flanking, ambushes, guerrilla first made it in the Theaters of War.

For someone to live over 4 400 years, he must be in really good shape. The Spearman is so fast that he runs around my tank while solving the rubic cube. The Spearman is so strong that he throws his spear from the other side of the mountain range, through the mountain, knocks the tank main battle gun, sending its turret spinning. The Spearman is so agile and skillful that he served tea to his legion while dodging%2

 

[Mrdie]

obviously the Spearman can defeat the Tank.
The Spearman was created in the bronze age, about maybe 2 500 BC, lets says.
And the tank was created in the year lets say 1900 AD.

The Spearman has been fighting for 4 400 years . He has countless training drills, participate and survives numerous wars. He polishes his spear so often that it's sharper than industrial diamonds. The Spearman for over 4 millennium has learned all fighting forms from pancreas to Thai kick boxing to Jitjutsu. He has learned all military tactics and strategy over the ages. He was there when flanking, ambushes, guerrilla first made it in the Theaters of War.

For someone to live over 4 400 years, he must be in really good shape. The Spearman is so fast that he runs around my tank while solving the rubic cube. The Spearman is so strong that he throws his spear from the other side of the mountain range, through the mountain, knocks the tank main battle gun, sending its turret spinning. The Spearman is so agile and skillful that he served tea to his legion while dodging%2

"Today, Grok the Spearman died, this national war hero and destroyer of tanks was 5721 years old."

 

[MetHimPikeHoses]

Good point Ogrelord. There's no substitute for being there, especially if you've been there since before your people invented the alphabet.

 

[Proteus]

Another point is:
If Ewok Spearmen and Archers are able to destroy modern imperial Stromtroopers, Speederbikes and AT-STs,
why shouldn´t human spearmen be able to do the same against Tanks or MBTs?

 

[Psyringe]

Since the spearman can obviously live forever, he persuaded the tank into a duel of out-staring each other. So, after several years of doing nothing, the tank's armor rusts through, and the whole vehicle collapses on its driver. Battle won.

 

[jefmart1]

The only way spearmen could "realistically" defeat a tank (from WW II for arguments sake) is if they ran out of bullets.

Otherwise, in real life, poor nations would build legions of spearmen to fight the richer nations. By the way,the human wave offense did not work for the Chinese in Korea (close to WW II). The UN and American forces drove back hundreds of times their numbers, and the Chinese had rifles.

Also, Russian troops in WW I tried this. The first troops had rifles and everyone behind them had sticks or pitchforks, or whatever, and when the guy with the rifle in front died, they picked it up and kept charging. Gallipoli, the Turks slaughtered the British and Australian forces with machine guns. WW I, numerous human wave assaults on the trenches failed. ETC ETC.

It is ridiculous to have tanks losing to knights, cavalry to macemen, etc. (ALL of that happens to me on a semi-regular basis.

SOLUTION: Gunpowder units need a +25% VS melee, and Modern units starting with Tanks need an automatic + 100% vs melee to avoid the rush tactics.

 

[Proteus]

I agree that a built in bonus of tanks/MBTs and gunpowder units against against melee troops would be nice (although I´d rather take 25% for gunpowder, 50% for tanks and 50% or more for gunships).

I´d also give Tanks/MBTs and mechanized infantry a bonus against archers, maybe around 25%.

 

[EdCase]

This is someone who knows something about tanks. 19K perhaps? Or just an M1A1 enthusiast?

Someone who served in the military and as infantry always thought tankers were crazy


But not quite as crazy as this ongoing debate

 

[Nilrim]

So while it is unlikely for a spearman to destroy a tank (or at least immobilize it), it IS possible. After all a tank is also more of an anti-tank weapon than an anti-personel weapon.

Not really, tanks were designed to break up massed Inf, and arty in WWI. In WWII the Sherman tank although a fine medium tank that was mainly used to support Inf could not hold its own even against older German tanks. Of course once the other guy had tanks you had to have tank killers but that is another issue. Even in todays battle field, the tank is meant to support the Inf and keep it moblie while protecting the inf against enemy tnaks.

 

[Slimbo]

1) A modern tank is built to withstand Nuclear-Biological-Chemical weapons, and is made to be extraordinarily well suited to different battlefields. Setting a forest on fire wouldn't toast a tank

You really believe that??? A modern Abrams is not a miracle weapon its just a bunch of common (high)technology... It definitly doesnot withstand a Nuclear attack, it's only build to withstand EM-Impulses and keep the crew alive for a little longer in radiactive fallout than unprotected infantry... Modern battle tanks, just increase the lifespan of the crew by about 5 times to infantry (which is at most a couple of hours just enough time to fight back attacking tanks) in the same fallout area and a tank being in the blast circle would not be anything more than melted steel with some burned human remains inside...

It only protects the crew from biological and chemical attacks as long as the gas filters work - tanks don't have own oxygen supply...

And even with their 100 tons weight and about 1000 horse powers, the can be totally stucked in a forest very easy (that's why all tanks have axes (!) and explosives on board to allow the crew chop/ blast trees blocking a street... but to do so you have to leave your tank...

And towards a fire, tanks don't have high-tech cooling systems... usually they only have a fan... so you are right a normal fire wouldn't destroy the tank, but the crew is still toasted pretty soon and after all the gas and the TNT (in the ammo) becomes selfignitting at a certain temperature as well...

Even with the standard U.S. anti-tank infantry weapon, the tank will always win. Know why? Because even direct shots by enemy tanks haven't pierced Abrams armor. .

Uh oh, I wouldn't believe that, modern antik weapons are very deadly for a modern tank, during my military training I once attended testing session for those weapons, and believe me I definitly don't want to sit inside a tank when you are hit by it... and I am pretty sure the American Anti-tank weapons are at least as advanced as German ones

Supply convoys in wartime are rarely unguarded.

Maybe but I don't know any army who has enough troops to guard the whole supply route a couple of boulders here and a couple of chopped trees there and you're tanks run out of fuel pretty soon... Eventually most NATO manouvers I attended (and at least 50% of the troops were American) nearly every battle tank platoon happened to be stuck at least for half a day or longer because the "enemy" disrupted their supply lines with just a platoon of pioneers sabotating the roads...

So to make the point, Battle tanks are incredibly powerful weapons but not immortal...

However what I really find unrealistic is not a rare spearmen vs. tank win, but the very very common modern battle tank vs. gunship win...
One Apache would blow a platoon of modern abrams to scrap in seconds
However as underpriced as the gunships are in the game, maybe they do not represent Apaches, but just choppers with a machine gun

 

[Cataphract887]

So while it is unlikely for a spearman to destroy a tank (or at least immobilize it), it IS possible. After all a tank is also more of an anti-tank weapon than an anti-personel weapon.

Half the people in this thread must never have seen a war...There is no way to use a wooden pole to destroy a very large METAL object! and unless you poke around in the engine, you cant ignite it either. There is no way for a spearman to win, although secondary tactics described above could.

 

[Ogrelord]

bahh! there was something wrong with my browser (firefox) and i couldn't finished editing my post.

the last sentence was suppose to be this; The Spearman is so agile and skillful that he served tea to his legion while dodging the depleted uranium shell.

 

[Nilrim]

The problem I have with the entire argument of spearmen vs tanks is that we are NOT talking about one spearman against one tank. I think that yes using certain tatics one man can take out one tank. However the odds of a 'troop' of spearmen taking out a 'troop' of tanks becomes expotianlly difficult. I like the idea of giving + modifires to each generation higher a unit is. With making it impossible for say a unit 3 generations or lower to do any damage. This would force not only the AI but the player to either disband or upgrade the unit.

Frankly I think there should be built in game rules that don't allow the AI or the human to keep units around that are 3 generations older then the Civ's current abiltiy. Have the game force you to upgrade, disband or put the unit in 'storage.'

 

[Pawel]

After reading all your interesting remarks on this subject, I just wanted to point out something with regard to the unit size. It clearly varies. In the demographics panel you have an attempt to match the two: a certain population and number of units lead to some amount of militay service. Has anyone bother to look up the "official" formula in the code? My suspicion is that the there are many more tanks per unit than suggested above, though, considering that a typical modern armored division has less than 50 guys per AFV...