Developer Diary, Part 195 - Discussion

[I./JG1_Baron]

2 hours ago, JaffaCake said:

Majority of the popular tank-driving games also provide some feedback to the players in terms of the "bullet cam". Having such feature for more arcade servers, and especially for debugging purposes, would be extremely valuable.

 

Personaly i hope the Bullet cam we will have not in game.

[Sharpe43]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 7:28 PM, Trooper117 said:

I wonder how long it will be before someone asks for this...

 

 

I recall burying that under some thousands of tonnes of desert, in Sniper Elite III...

[Brano]

In Panzer Elite it was possible to switch into next vehicle in your tank platoon when your own was damaged beyond repairs. Theoretically you had 4 lives in 4 tank platoon. But of course less tanks in your platoon left, the more tough it was to complete the mission. It was also possible to do some minor repairs (torn tracks to some extent, it took a lot of time).

Also the maps were not 100x100km. Each mission/scenario had its own dedicated map of smaller battlefield area = your tank platoon started at same position as it would in real world. Not 50km behind frontline,  but only few kilometers so you could overcome the distance to first contact with enemy in relativly short time. I remember a set of missions in Ostpak , dealing with southern flank of german advance (2nd SS Panzerkorps), had several scenarios following the breaching of soviet defenses. Yakovlevo, Teterevino, Pravorot and two near Prochorovka. 

[JaffaCake]

31 minutes ago, I./JG1_Baron said:

 

Personaly i hope the Bullet cam we will have not in game.

 

 

I can understand not having it in a "full-sim" environment, but I see no reason whatsoever to be against being able to see how and what killed you after you are done with the game? (i.e. replay). It enables you to actually learn about tank's weakspots and oddities that otherwise you would just be unable to decipher.

 

And if War Thunder is anything to go by in terms of development - the moment they introduced the "bullet cam" the community found a staggering number of armour modelling bugs that were being dismissed as variety of "biases" previously.

[Brano]

Steel Fury has nice AAR feature. You can review all units on battlefield, including your own, and see what hit them, which calibre, if it was a ricochet or punch thru, what angle and trajectory.

[=27=Davesteu]

13 hours ago, Legioneod said:

15 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Being penetrated and a crew member killed definitely should be the end of your run. Some rare instances of tanks continuing the fight aside, you better hurry if your tank was penetrated. Not to mention it's highly unlikely only one is hit and nothing else important is damaged, wounded and/or dead.

 

It will be interesting to see how the game counts various possible endings. Where do you "land"? What happens if a track is thrown off?

Over-penetrating was a pretty serious problem for Americans fighting the Japanese, the round would go right through the tank and they would just keep fighting, thats the main reason they started using HE when fighting Japanese tanks. 

I'm curious to see how it will be handled in-game, without one-two crew you could still fight. There needs to be some mechanic in-place that accounts for crew death and over penetration, and that allows for more options than just abandoning the tank. 

I hope there won't be any switching of positions to replace incapacitated crew members. Just imagine crawling inside the tank, if possible at all, with at least a severe shell shock, let alone the fragmentation, having to push your likely splattered fellow to the side, only to be hit by another round as you tank didn't burn after the first one.
If your armor is penetrated and something vital damaged, wounded and/or killed you are done for. Either your tank is on fire, the ammunition cooks off or the tank that just shot at you will do so again just to make sure. If the armor is pierced without any serious damage caused, you could possibly continue the fight of course, but the next shot at you will follow soon. Chances of surviving an APHE like the  PzGr. 39 or especially the BR-350B (as seen in the KV-1s pics) are very slim anyways. Overpenetrating will not be a problem at all, it just won't happen

 

5 hours ago, JaffaCake said:

Majority of the popular tank-driving games also provide some feedback to the players in terms of the "bullet cam". Having such feature for more arcade servers, and especially for debugging purposes, would be extremely valuable. 

If it isn't mandatory I don't mind it being included. An x-ray view inside the hanger I think would be the best way implementing something like this though. On the battlefield it changes the immersion and gameplay too much in my opinion. I want to determine myself if another round is necessary or not.
This makes me wonder if destroyed tanks will remain on the battlefield. They should, really.

 

 

6 hours ago, GTursonA523 said:

229. Tank Regiment , they fight near Belogord.

I used to be under the impression the Red Army didn't field any Sherman before 1944 and only became aware of the 229th being attached to the 48th Army at the time of Citadel after a user pointed out a book stating so. Various Russian language websites support the claim. What I'm still not certain about is whether or not they actually got involved in the fighting.

Do you have further information about this? Also, wasn't the 48th Army on the northern part of the bulge?

6 hours ago, GTursonA523 said:

He was also very fast and maneuverable tank...

...and by stabilizer cannon, can be quite accurately shoot movement.

Off-road the VVSS Sherman had rather poor characteristics.

The Red Army didn't utilize the stabilizer, even US crews very rarely did. It should not be usable ingame. While being a fine piece of engineering at the time, it worked and was intended for use far off anything seen today. More of a "stop, take a quick shot and go again"-thing rather than firing on the move.

Edited June 27, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[Feathered_IV]

2 hours ago, Brano said:

Steel Fury has nice AAR feature. You can review all units on battlefield, including your own, and see what hit them, which calibre, if it was a ricochet or punch thru, what angle and trajectory.

 

I can never get past that first training mission and that Martha Farquhar of a Matilda tank.  Effing tank ditch.  Grrrr!!

[Jason_Williams]

Guys,

 

Let me make something clear. At this point there are no Collector Tanks. All tanks and vehicles come in one complete package. 

 

Jason

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

17 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

I can never get past that first training mission and that Martha Farquhar of a Matilda tank.  Effing tank ditch.  Grrrr!!

 

Manual tranny and clever angles, ol chap.

 

8 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

Guys,

 

Let me make something clear. At this point there are no Collector Tanks. All tanks and vehicles come in one complete package. 

 

Jason

 

Is there a particular reason TC is diverging from how every other content pack for IL-2: GB has been delivered?

 

The lack of a StuG is disheartening...

Edited June 27, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[Brano]

1 hour ago, =27=Davesteu said:

I used to be under the impression the Red Army didn't field any Sherman before 1944 and only became aware of the 229th being attached to the 48th Army at the time of Citadel after a user pointed out a book stating so. Various Russian language websites support the claim. What I'm still not certain about is whether or not they actually got involved in the fighting.

Do you have further information about this? Also, wasn't the 48th Army on the northern part of the bulge?

229. Tank regiment, according to archives,was in times of Prokhorovka part of Central Front - 13th Army - 15th Infantry Corps

Situated NE of Ponyri towards Maloarchangelsk, facing left flank of German 41st and 47th Panzerkorps direction of attack.

Центральный фронт: 13-я Армия – 15-й СК (8 сд, 74 сд, 148 сд), 229-й отп, 43 отп, 84 отп; 27 и 30 гв. отп; 129 тбр 
СХЕМА группировки средств усиления войск 13 Армии, 14.07.1943 г., Архив ЦАМО, Фонд 62, Опись 321, Дело 10

 

Check the map. It is in second echelon of 148th Rifle Division.

https://pamyat-naroda.ru/documents/view/?id=132346708

 

 

[Thad]

3 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

Guys,

 

Let me make something clear. At this point there are no Collector Tanks. All tanks and vehicles come in one complete package. 

 

Jason

Ah ha... "At this point".... so there may be a possibility in the future. ?

[PL_Andrev]

20 hours ago, 307_Tomcat said:

More challenging - yes, but most funny ?

 

Look from this side:

Instead attacking strategic point you will stop and shot to single soldiers. Not 10-15 but 100-150 each kilometer forward.

OK, it may be quite funny. But after few hours you will be disappointed that infantry is bugged, do nothing, do not stop you etc.

 

Mobile and stationary anti-tank guns under camo may defend strategic points

Armored cars & carriers (?) may be critical units to take a control over areas (defend from another light units),

Supply trucks may supply tanks,

Recon vehicles may spot enemy vehicles and report their position,

Artillery units may support local battle,

 

Yes, why not. These types of infantry should be available (like fuel trucks and planes on airfields). But not single soldiers.

 

BTW.

It may be interesting option to take control over strategic points (bridges, supplies, airfields) by mobile infantry units:

1. Light, medium and heavy tanks are "cleaning" strategic areas with cooperation of artillery / air units.

2. Now the're waiting for armored cars who take a control over area (and protect / report if enemy does counter-attack).

3. Captured point is a "service" point where supply trucks may be spawned if tanks need supplies (or take an control over airfield to faster air support or artillery points are moved to new defence line).

 

This ^^ is very nice option not only with single but for multiplayer game too:

- you (as tank commander) are responsible to clean area and provide acting of infantry units going behind you,

- AI units are responsible to move and cap to strategic area if no enemy (or go back if all ally tanks are destroyed)

- planes are using for detect enemy forces and attacking marked defence points (AI and player controlled tanks)

 

40 minutes ago, Thad said:

Ah ha... "At this point".... so there may be a possibility in the future. ?

 

What wrong with it? If game will be really good there is no problem to add land-lease units, late-war units or western front (early and late) / African campaigns.

Hope I'll buy Tank Crew's Battle of Bulge or El-Alamein campaigns.

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by PL_Andrev

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

For the second time, a Second World War armored warfare simulator misses the point if it doesn't contain even rudimentary infantry assets. Armored warfare in WWII was largely based around combined operations/direct infantry support. Fuel trucks, armored cars, etc. are not infantry and aren't equitable to infantry.

 

Steel Fury proves the concept is completely doable, is engaging and adds quite a bit to gameplay - excluding simple infantry doesn't make sense and like Brano, I'm on the fence about it if all it will be is a hollow vehicular battleground.

 

Setting preconditions like "oh is funny," "oh is too many infantry to shoot," or "disappointment from bugged infantry" is an insular straw man.

 

On 6/25/2018 at 3:31 PM, PL_Andrev said:

Sure, but Steel Fury is single player game, not multi.

 

-snip-

 

Entirely irrelevant.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[=621=Samikatz]

4 hours ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

Is there a particular reason TC is diverging from how every other content pack for IL-2: GB has been delivered?

 

The lack of a StuG is disheartening...

 

Drive models might take a lot less time and testing than flight models?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

18 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Drive models might take a lot less time and testing than flight models?

 

What does that have to do with selling collector's tanks..?

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, PL_Andrev said:

 

What wrong with it? If game will be really good there is no problem to add land-lease units, late-war units or western front (early and late) / African campaigns.

Hope I'll buy Tank Crew's Battle of Bulge or El-Alamein campaigns.

 

 

I'd love to see a Battle of Arracourt someday. Battle of the Buldge can be done with Bodenplatte map I imagine, all they'd need to do is add more tanks.

[=27=Davesteu]

6 hours ago, Brano said:

229. Tank regiment, according to archives,was in times of Prokhorovka part of Central Front - 13th Army - 15th Infantry Corps

Situated NE of Ponyri towards Maloarchangelsk, facing left flank of German 41st and 47th Panzerkorps direction of attack.

Much appreciated, Brano!

So the Russian Wikipedia article is wrong about the army, but the operational area is correct. Do you know whether they got involved in any action or kept reserve?

 

The distance of approx. 150km(!) between Ponyri and Prokhorovka brings to mind the scope of the battle. At the same time it's one of the reasons I think it's unfortunate we miss on the Churchill Mk.IV in favor of the Sherman and Ferdinand despite it, in contrast to latter two, was deployed in the area the map is going to represent.

Of course, the Sherman is publicly well known (also the answer given to my similar question during the Q&A), but what about the Ferdinand?
And most importantly: What about the SU-122? It has no real anti-tank capabilities and likely limited soft targets, if at all - easily going to be the by far least popular vehicle.

Even the, historically rather important, T-70 would be more potent and worth it being included. Or a second T-34 made by a different Zavod? My choice would be a Churchill.

I'm really thrilled about 'Tank Crew', even in case it's just going to be a door opener, but the SU-122 bugs me. It's rather contradictory including no Infantry but the 122.

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[gn728]

Just curious, what other titles are out there?  I'm not well versed about tank games. I saw Steel Fury and Steel Armor from Graviteam, and Steel Beasts from Esim?. The rest of the armor titles I saw seemed to be more tactical level than simulation..

[-TBC-AeroAce]

World of Tanks is the best sim going ?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

1 minute ago, AeroAce said:

World of Tanks is the best sim going ?

 

WOT isn't a sim.

 

The Graviteam sims, while dated, are the best representation/modeling IMO.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

24 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

WOT isn't a sim.

 

The Graviteam sims, while dated, are the best representation/modeling IMO.

 

It was sarcasm but maybe it had too much of a serious Britishness to it. 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

1 minute ago, AeroAce said:

 

It was sarcasm but maybe it had too much of a serious Britishness to it. 

 

With half the asininity that goes on here it's easy to miss the sarcasm.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

52 minutes ago, gn728 said:

Just curious, what other titles are out there?  I'm not well versed about tank games. I saw Steel Fury and Steel Armor from Graviteam, and Steel Beasts from Esim?. The rest of the armor titles I saw seemed to be more tactical level than simulation..

There is no modern tank sim title out there for sure.

[Brano]

Steel Fury+ Steel Panzer mod is pretty much everything you need in terms of company level ground combat simulator. "Vehicle simulator" of IL-2 franchise is, as anounced, not ambitious enough to surpass it.

[Legioneod]

54 minutes ago, Brano said:

Steel Fury+ Steel Panzer mod is pretty much everything you need in terms of company level ground combat simulator. "Vehicle simulator" of IL-2 franchise is, as anounced, not ambitious enough to surpass it.

I would say it's just a matter of time and resources, the team has 2 other big projects in the works so they can't dedicate all to tanks. If tanks are a success I'd imagine them expanding on it and added much wanted features in the future.

[Jason_Williams]

2 hours ago, Brano said:

Steel Fury+ Steel Panzer mod is pretty much everything you need in terms of company level ground combat simulator. "Vehicle simulator" of IL-2 franchise is, as anounced, not ambitious enough to surpass it.

 

My goal is not to be a clone of Steel Fury. We have tech and content Steel Fury never dreamed of. We will forge our own path. BTW is Steel Fury still in development? If it was so awesome, why did it stop? More people telling me I'm making a mistake. 10 years on myself and my team are still here making stuff. Ye have little faith. 

 

Jason

[TAAC_Blue]

That's a good response Jason, looking forward to what the team will be able to do with it.

[Legioneod]

Pretty interesting video.

 

 

[IVJG4-Knight]

11 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Pretty interesting video.

 

 

 

I'm not an expert on tanks but i certainly have a few things i don't understand about this video :

Why does he say that the americans met the tiger in battle just 3 times ? What's 3 times supposed to mean ? 3 hours, 3 battles , 3 campaigns ?

At Midway in the Pacific war, the fate of the entire campaign was decided in minutes so 3 times , 2 times and even one time matters.

 

He's reviewing tanks and not nations so why does it matter if the americans met the tiger just 3 times ?  when the same tank(sherman ) was used by british and russian forces and these british and russian shermans also met tigers in battle (Billers-Bocage and the eastern front).

He talks about big cats vs sherman and than why does he cherry pick only the tiger and only on the american side ? There are also panthers , jagdpanthers , tiger 2, jagdtigers that met shermans in the battle of the bulge.

 

From what i read the germans considered the firefly to be the more dangerous tank, compare to any other sherman and targeted this tank first (that's why some of these shermans had a fake muzzle brake at the middle of the barrel to give the impression that it's a regular sherman and others have half of the barrel painted, again to make it look shorter and not stand out vs a regular sherman tank).Let's make the following assumption :So presume a guy like this pulls a statistic and says well you see the firefly got killed more than the regular sherman so the regular sherman is better but the statistic doesn't say that the germans targeted the firefly first because they saw it as a bigger threat; you can't really say that statistics are the ultimate proof because in some cases they can be skewed.

 

The part he analyzes the sherman's armour in relation to the tiger's armour is also unclear to me.The fact is that it's irrelevant how thick the armour on the sherman is because the 88 gun on the tiger has no problem penetrating it from and absurd range and the gun on the sherman can't do the same. It just doesn't offer the same level of protection .

 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by IVJG4-Knight

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

I'm not an expert on tanks but i certainly have a few things i don't understand about this video :

Why does he say that the americans met the tiger in battle just 3 times ? What's 3 times supposed to mean ? 3 hours, 3 battles , 3 campaigns ?

At Midway in the Pacific war, the fate of the entire campaign was decided in minutes so 3 times , 2 times and even one time matters.

 

He's reviewing tanks and not nations so why does it matter if the americans met the tiger just 3 times ?  when the same tank(sherman ) was used by british and russian forces and these british and russian shermans also met tigers in battle (Billers-Bocage and the eastern front).

He talks about big cats vs sherman and than why does he cherry pick only the tiger and only on the american side ? There are also panthers , jagdpanthers , tiger 2, jagdtigers that met shermans in the battle of the bulge.

 

From what i read the germans considered the firefly to be the more dangerous tank, compare to any other sherman and targeted this tank first (that's why some of these shermans had a fake muzzle brake at the middle of the barrel to give the impression that it's a regular sherman and others have half of the barrel painted, again to make it look shorter and not stand out vs a regular sherman tank).Let's make the following assumption :So presume a guy like this pulls a statistic and says well you see the firefly got killed more than the regular sherman so the regular sherman is better but the statistic doesn't say that the germans targeted the firefly first because they saw it as a bigger threat; you can't really say that statistics are the ultimate proof because in some cases they can be skewed.

 

The part he analyzes the sherman's armour in relation to the tiger's armour is also unclear to me.The fact is that it's irrelevant how thick the armour on the sherman is because the 88 gun on the tiger has no problem penetrating it from and absurd range and the gun on the sherman can't do the same. It just doesn't offer the same level of protection .

 

 

 

He's just dispelling popular myths about the Sherman and not really comparing it's variants.

 

In regards to the 76 vs 17pdr he was comparing the 76 to the 17pdr. He wasn't saying that the 17pdr was bad but it wasn't as accurate at range as the 76 was and in test the 76 performed better overall.

 

The Tiger certainly had a better gun than the Sherman he even says so in the video but there are some Sherman (Jumbo) that can possibly withstand a hit from a 88 at long ranges but that's besides the point.

 

Overall the Sherman was a good tank and it did it's job well, it wasn't some poor deathtrap of a tank which I think was the point he was trying to get across.

[molotovb]

4 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

My goal is not to be a clone of Steel Fury. We have tech and content Steel Fury never dreamed of. We will forge our own path. BTW is Steel Fury still in development? If it was so awesome, why did it stop? More people telling me I'm making a mistake. 10 years on myself and my team are still here making stuff. Ye have little faith. 

 

Jason

 

Absolutely those guys are still in development.  They went and did the tank sim experiment, learned from it, and moved on to continue to make successful, fun games.  

[Junjun_Nikurasu]

On 6/23/2018 at 4:26 AM, Han said:

Tank Crew: Clash at Prokhorovka

Awww Yesh!!  The Hype is soooo REAL!

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Junjun_Nikurasu

[Missionbug]

To be honest I think most are just happy to see this tank addition in development, like most things IL_2 it will develop as and when time and resources are available, let's get what has been advertised out the door first and see how it goes.

 

From the little experience I have had with the existing vehicles once closed up inside  a tank there is very little to see so in most cases,  if there was infantry around exactly how much of it would you notice?

 

I find you are too busy trying to find what is shooting at you to be concerned about your surroundings, survival being at the forefront of priorities, I know for one if I was a soldier on the battlefield I would be behind the tanks using them for cover, not running around in front waiting for them to run me over.

 

 

The existing tank experience in our current title from what I have tried and read about has been positive, this new title expands on that, by the time it finally hits the shelves who knows how it will have progressed, it needs to start somewhere, the existing gun emplacements and single soldiers manning the Mg's in game should be adequate I think.

 

 

I do think we need a Churchill tank though.

 

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Missionbug

[unreasonable]

48 minutes ago, Missionbug said:

 

I find you are too busy trying to find what is shooting at you to be concerned about your surroundings, survival being at the forefront of priorities, I know for one if I was a soldier on the battlefield I would be behind the tanks using them for cover, not running around in front waiting for them to run me over.

 

 

 

Then you would be dead. Infantry are trained to stay away from tanks as far as possible since they attract all sorts of unwanted attention and fire. The tank crew has protection,  but the idea that infantry can use the tank as a shield is usually a very bad idea.    You are right that inside the tank visibility is awful, hence tank commanders try to fight with the hatch open: but you would notice infantry once they start firing AT weapons at you, placing magnetic mines on your hull, or even brassing you up from a distance with an MG, forcing you to button up.

 

 

 

   

Edited June 28, 2018 by unreasonable

[Yogiflight]

11 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Then you would be dead. Infantry are trained to stay away from tanks as far as possible since they attract all sorts of unwanted attention and fire. The tank crew has protection,  but the idea that infantry can use the tank as a shield is usually a very bad idea. 

You are speaking in present tense, and here you are right. You wouldn't do that today. But in WW II it was very common to use the tanks as protection shield against infantry weapons. It is always better to hide behind a tank, than to walk on the open field. In the one case the enemy's MGs and rifles shoot at the tank, in the other case they shoot at the free walking soldiers. So guess, what might be the preferred version for the attacking infantry men.

[unreasonable]

15 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

You are speaking in present tense, and here you are right. You wouldn't do that today. But in WW II it was very common to use the tanks as protection shield against infantry weapons. It is always better to hide behind a tank, than to walk on the open field. In the one case the enemy's MGs and rifles shoot at the tank, in the other case they shoot at the free walking soldiers. So guess, what might be the preferred version for the attacking infantry men.

 

No, well trained infantry would not do it in WW2 either, with rare exceptions.  For instance, in a built up area attacking a clearly defined strongpoint when the risk of from mortars and artillery is very low and there are no alternative avenues of approach you might do it very briefly to get into a better position. 

 

Walking behind a tank is a "noob mistake": it is intuitive, and no doubt often done by inexperienced and ill-trained men, but it is exceptionally dangerous. If you have a whole section of men clustered behind a tank they can all be killed by a single mortar shell: or even by a burst from an MG off to a flank. The whole idea that you are "hiding behind" the tank is generally illusory, since you do not know with any certainty where the fire is going to come from.  

 

Well trained infantry spread out and use natural cover.  You are safer the further away from the tank that you are.  

[Voidhunger]

Steel fury no longer belongs to graviteam so it cant be improved and that is a shame. Steel fury is still awesome, but im looking forward to tank crew.

[Legioneod]

54 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

No, well trained infantry would not do it in WW2 either, with rare exceptions.  For instance, in a built up area attacking a clearly defined strongpoint when the risk of from mortars and artillery is very low and there are no alternative avenues of approach you might do it very briefly to get into a better position. 

 

Walking behind a tank is a "noob mistake": it is intuitive, and no doubt often done by inexperienced and ill-trained men, but it is exceptionally dangerous. If you have a whole section of men clustered behind a tank they can all be killed by a single mortar shell: or even by a burst from an MG off to a flank. The whole idea that you are "hiding behind" the tank is generally illusory, since you do not know with any certainty where the fire is going to come from.  

 

Well trained infantry spread out and use natural cover.  You are safer the further away from the tank that you are.  

US Marines stuck very close to their tanks in combat, mostly to protect the tanks but also to use as cover in times of need.

[Fliegel]

8 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

Ye have little faith

[unreasonable]

If you are part of a group attacking a specific strongpoint the idea of tanks as cover might make some sense.  But almost always, you do not know where all of the enemy are, so you cannot say what is "behind" the tank.  Defensive positions are designed to provided mutually supporting fire from enfilade.  Defenders, especially HMGs, do not just fire straight ahead but in interlocking arcs.  Mortar and artillery fire will kill men "behind" a tank if they land to the side, even without proximity shells.  If a tank runs over an AT mine (a key weapons system in the Kursk operations, btw)  infantry that are too close will take the consequences.   

 

The primary rule of infantry combat is to spread out, either individually or by weapons team.   Tanks are protected from close assault by enemy infantry by the fire of the surrounding infantry, not by having bodies in close proximity.  The infantry is protected (so far as is possible) by using fire and movement and terrain. Attacking infantry have a variety of jobs to do, which they cannot do if they are clustered behind tanks.

 

German combined tactics in the attack called for tanks to be about 100m apart with each gap filled by an infantry section (squad), German PzGren squads usually having two LMG fire teams.  So about 10m spacing for the infantry, and none of them "behind the tanks".  The first thing infantry do when dismounting from APCs is spread out.  And so on...

 

Look fellows, I can only tell you what I was taught as an infantry officer in the early 1980s,  when the weapons systems and tactics were not very much different to those of late WW2, and why.