Some time ago, after suffering the kind of thorough thrashing that Rommel regularly dealt the British in North Africa (and my opponent was no Rommel by any means), it became rather obvious that Tobruk required more than a leisurely approach in order to put up a good fight. So, being of sound and vigorous (except if you ask my wife) Anglo-Saxon stock, the most obvious solution of studying the units until they were thoroughly understood was undertaken (British viewpoint is always favorable to the study of situations, hoping they'll go away), and the following paragraphs represent my astute findings.

Tanks

Unfortunately for the weak of spirit, the meat with regards to the characteristics of Tobruk's tanks must be dug out of a statistical morass. Unlike Panzer Blitz, where a simple number could be used to easily size up a unit's defense or offense, everything in Tobruk is indicated in a chart vaguely reminiscent of Computer Science III, with hordes of brackets, dice rolls and ranges (trying to tell whether a Stuart ia better than a Mark IIIh at a glance might be an apt test for Child Genius Status).

However, after many hours of hard work (while easy stuff like mowing the lawn went unattended), some clarity has been obtained, and hopefully the following material will make the game easier to understand.

One of the most peculiar features of Tobruk and one which separates it from most wargames, is the Area Impacted chart that is used when a hit is obtained. It is possible that even the Stuart or Crusader tank can survive two hits by an 88 and carry on due to the possibility of a ricochet, and that's what all three empty boxes on the Area Impacted chart represent.

Using a little statistical manipulation, the following "bounce off" probabilities were obtained for frontal hits:

Grant 61%	Mark IIIj 61%
Stuart 50%	Mark IIIh 47%
Crusader 55%	Marder III 50%
Matilda 61%	M13/40 30%
Valentine 58%	Mark IVe 42%

When you couple the rather high percentage of hits without effect with the lack of tank gun effectiveness against most tanks out past 10 hexes, some interesting facts are perceived. The Mark IIIj, for instance, is immune to a penetration frontally from all English guns outaide of the 690-meter range. Even a Stuart, due to its 50% luck factor, will usually survive even a long 88mm hit as long as no APCR is used. The following chart takes the "bounce off" percentages of each vehicle, the hit that will stick and the immobilization hits (m-kills) and summarize the factors so that the strengths and weaknesses can be studied in detail.

Frontal Armor Penetration Possibiliities
Tank	5 hexes	10 hexes	Immobilization %	Enemy Gun
Stuart	32%	32%	11%	50mm short
Crusader	33%	28%	14%	50mm short
Grant	18%	18%	14%	50mm long (APCR)
Matilda	25%	17%	14%	50mm long (APCR)
Valentine	25%	25%	18%	50mm long (APCR)
Mark IIIj	3%	3%	17%	75mm/M2
Mark IIIh	18%	14%	17%	2 pdr.
Marder III	22%	22%	14%	2 pdr. or 37mm M6
Mark IVe	18%	14%	18%	2 pdr. or 37mm M6
M13/40	55%	33%	14%	2 pdr.

For the English commander, the statistics tell a definite story with regard to the tactics of survival in a desert filled with Panzers intent on making up for the earlier defeats of their brave Italian allies (ever wonder why Italian counters are yellow in Tobruk?).

Since the Mark IIIj is just about the nearest thing to Ogre this side of Metagaming, one must follow the exact tactics and go for the treads. While it would be great to flank the pride of the panzers, the approaches are bound to be guarded by the ubiquitous Mark IIIh's. Know where the German offensive power lies.

So, barring a sloppy German commander, it certainly makes sense to use every available tank gun and hope for a track hit. After immobilizing the Mark IIIj, either the beast can be flanked for the kill (assuming some German assistance) or, given the proper circumstances, the whole Britiah force can run away and try to force battle out of the lone 60mm's range (the look of an immobilized Mark mj has various psychological and victory-point influences, and may demoralise the opposition as an extra bonus).

Tank duels between the Mark IIIh panzers and Stuarts and Crusaders shouldn't be disdained when they present themselves just because the previous chart seems to depict a one-sided affair. Despite the better penetrating characteristics of the 60mm short compared to the 37 and 40mm popguns of the Allies, the German panzers were unusually susceptible to track damage, which evens things up a bit.

With M-kills thrown in, the Mark III will only outpercentage the opposition by 47 or 43% to 36%, and the Crusader's higher initial rate-of-fire further reduces the disparity in probabilities.

Due to the impotence of the Mark IV for all practical purpoces (it's usually out of range when doing its only real function, namely blowing smoke or HE) and the old mobile coffin, the M13/40 (which Australians seemed to use for some odd reason, although probably with 1,001 sandbags on top), the remaining German AFV for real targeting purposoes is the Marder III.

Due to the nifty 76.2mm Russian gun, the Marder brings instant fear to the usually reckless Crusader crews on account of the letha1ity. Fortunately for the Royal Armored Corps, the Marder is not only one of the slowest firing weapons, but for a high quality gun mount it has two great drawbacks: no mentionable turret armor and a high profile. Should the occasion ever present itself, divert a few Crusaders or Stuarts from local firefights and take some potshots at the tank destroyer (it's funny that tank deetroyers are often overly apt to become tanks destroyed).

Range with Hit Probability Number of 8
Stuart	13	Mark IIIh	11
Grant	9 & 13	Mark IIIj	14
Matilda	10	Mark IVe	6
Crusader	10	Marder	13
Valentine	10	M13/40	9

While the Stuart's 37mm gun is often maligned as another example of inferior American tank guns produced during the war, the tanks equipped with the 2-pounders are at a worse disadvantage in tank duels due to the ability of the Germans to get first shot in head-on-head confrontations; and the decreased accuracy beyond 10 hexes.

For the German player, the ideal tactic is a multitude of duels with tanks faced front-to-front, where the superior speed of the lighter Britiah tanks are thrown away in a wild exchange of shots where only a track hit might be expected before Crusader crews start to fry. Even the duels between Grants and IIIjs are bad scenes without any mobility, since the Grants are six times as likely to "brew up" as their adversaries with only a 226% higher ROF and a slightly less vulnerable track to their advantage.

To sum up the previous points, the Germans in an even match can usually use their superior weaponry to get in the first shot and eventually penetrate the opposition in most cases. Whether on offense or defense, they can well afford to close and then sit while the British rush to get within gun range. Due to the Marder's fragile nature, that vehicle is best used well behind the main line of tanks in a position where it can guard the flanks and pick up flank shots against enemy AFVs trying to outmaneuver the panzer front (garbage duties).

The British player has it somewhat rougher, but then again building and holding an empire based on the superiority of 1914 era infantry and cavalry like units for 1942 land battles was never easy (especially when your tanks either imitate light cavalry or the elephant legions of India). The cruisers, like the Crusaders and Stuarts, must somehow flank the enemy while someone else holds their attention frontally.

The optimum strategy for the Commonwealth is to hope for some track hits, and then charge from the flanks or fire within 5 hexes to get a kill (the availability of 57mm or 6 pdr tank guns after El Alamein closed the gap until the Mark IV with the long 75 gave the Germans renewed superiority).

Oddly enough, while the English tanks appear to be infantry support oriented due to either slow speeds or puny guns, all of the anti-personnel capability was concentrated in the Crusader C.S. vehicle. None of the tanks (not even the Infantry Tank Matilda) carry HE, and only the Crusader carries two machine guns. It would appear that English policy was to use the Matildas to ward off enemy armor while the infantry and artillery cleared up infantry opposition, instead of using the tank as a breakthrough and exploitation tool (its lack of speed "scotched" that tactic).

It's no wonder that the German PAK fronts were so successful prior to lend-lease since all the cruisers and tanks could do is try to overrun (in the literal sense) the anti-tank guns before they get annihilated. U.S. aid did wonders to reverse the British failures against ATGs and infantry positions with the introduction of the Stuarts and Grants.

Stuarts and Grants

The Stuart represents the best ATG destroyer in the game due to twin machine guns and HE capability. In addition, the speed of the vehicle and accuracy of the gun make the Stuart preferable to the Crusader for closing and firing on German ATGs (HE is over three times more effective than AP when shooting at weapons with small guns).

Grants, while possessing more fragmentation factors than the Stuarts, are less accurate with their 76s and are usually too busy fighting off panzers to go ATG busting. Given some breathing room, the tanks can be used againat Marders and infantzy with good effect, and the use of the optional ammo rule (no restrictions on first fire range) really allows the Grant to utilize all of the potential to the fullest (although the Marder III gains even more with the rule, so the English should be careful when haggling over the experimental rules to be used).

The most interesting aspect of Tobruk to players, however, is the degree to which the strategy hinges on immobilized tanks. AFVs with inferior weaponry but high ROFs become more valuable against the best panzers due to their greater ability to detrack the German vehicles. While crews may stay in their tanks in Tobruk after they're detracked, despite their continued firepower eventual flanking and destruction is almost a certainty (the Mark IVe is especially noted for the garbage kills it gets in scenario one against "grounded" Grants when the better panzers are needed elsewhere).

Firefight Strategy

The ultimate test of the strategy is firefight one, where 3 Matildas take on 15 M13/40s in a contest that probably happened very often during O'Connor's romp through Libya. Due to the slow speeds of both contestants, flanking is out of the question, and even with more time and a bigger board the 13/40s would provide welcome cannon fodder for the Matilda crews (even flanking a Matilda doesn't buy too much, since 50% of the hits will still bounce off the flanks).

Had the Italian commanders thought of it (they were probably too busy running), they would have realized the potential they had for a slight victory in the firefight. Using the immobilization principle, and making full use of their superiority of ROF, they should have closed to within 13 hexes and traded shots. With a 18 to 9 advantage in initial ROF, and 72 against 18 for acquired shots, hopefully one or two Matildas could be detracked or even F-killed before a 13/40 baked its crew during a brew up. After obtaining the initial "freak hit" advantage, the Italian panzers could then do their thing and speed back towards the rear areas and victory!

While winning such a "victory" may not seem like very much to crow about (except for the Italians whose tankers probably don't expect too much), it does show how track hits can be used to swing things to one side or the other, and an immobilized Matilda prevents the English from creating havoc somewhere else for a few hours, at least. And since immobilization kills will make up about 30-40% of your initial damage to the enemy's tanks, you might as well know how to exploit the advantage while you wait for some penetrations to burn your opponents.

Anti-Tank Guns

In a very interesting turn of events, the British in Tobruk are in pretty much the same situation as the Italians they thoroughly defeated in 1940 with regard to weaponry.

While the 2-pounder and the Matilda were pretty hot items in Blitzkrieg-ridden France and the Italian colonies, able to take on the Axis forces head on due to their superiority, by 1942 the face hardened armor of the Mark IIIs and the use of APCR changed the complexion of things rather drastically. The British and their fellow empire compatriots were now on the defensive, and had to use their minds to carefully prepare defensive layouts to get the most out of their somewhat obsolete equipment.

Since the 2-pounder, which is the most common antitank gun in the British inventory, cannot effectively neutralize Mark IIIs frontally, the options are pretty clearcut. Either the guns can be used to threaten flank shots, thereby channeling the panzer attack either directly at them or away, or they can lay back and go for as many immobilization hits as possible (their high ROF makes them a natural for this duty, but don't expect them to last too long).

The unfortunate aspect of the 2-pounder is that the Mark III's gun has greater range and accuracy, and they can expect to be peppered with HE before they really get to do much. Perhaps after reviewing their numerous weaknesses, their best use is to the flank of the main position where they'll divert some panzers from the main thrust and perhaps buy some time and a few flank penetrations. In addition, it's often quite possible to get flank hits on the units assaulting the 2-pounders with the longer range ATGs, so their loss may well cost the Germans.

The 25-pounder, due to English problems, must often be used as an ATG, which is a "mixed bag" sort of situation. 25-pounders pack a pretty good wallop, but outside of 7 hexes they're no better than 2-pounders against Mark IIIs, and their accuracy and ROF is abysmal. Like the 2-pounder, unless they get a few flank shots from proper positioning they really can't do much against a tank.

The 6-pounder, however, represents the most advanced ATG available in 1942 to the English, and in Tunisia 6-pounders with APDS kept the Tigers from eating the English up.

The 6-pounder can trade shots with a IIIj without giving up any accuracy, and the high ROF makes it really dangerous, even for track hits at long distances. But the gun also has some bugaboos for the British commander to consider. Outside of 10 hexes, the gun penetrates just like a 2-pounder (meaning hardly at all), and an immobilized panzer can still bring down HE shells on the ATG until the gun is hit.

Balancing a force of British ATGs is really an effort, and in order to get a few kills before being eventually overrun, careful planning is necessary. Somehow, the ATGs must be located so that the panzers attacking one outpost present flank shots to the other groups, with mutually supporting fields-of-fire. Stacking everything in the middle just invites a frontal attack by tanks with better guns and survival chances than you've got. Remember, after the 6-pounders bite the desert dust you can forget about frontal penetrations.

Should you ever get the chance to pick an English ATG contingent from scratch, the Bofors AA gun can do wonders for your victory chances. With 17 shots initially, and 35 (don't 35 rolls just blow your mind!) acquired shots, targets out to 14-17 hexes may find it impossible to advance without a slew of broken tracks and penetrated turrets. And if you avoid the experimental rules governing range and initial tank fire, panzers will be pelted with shells before they close on you.

Germans

The German player ia considerably better off than his opponent, since his ATGs are high quality and exist in good numbers.

The 88 is just beautiful, and ia a commander's dream. No worries about positioning the gun for front hits here, just set it up well in the rear of your position and anything you hit can be expected to decompose to its basic elements (I still don't believe that half the hits on Stuarts will bounce off when an 88 hits it, but I suppose Mr. Hook is an eternal optimist like the British, and let some personal favoritism into the rules).

For protection of the 88, the 60mm PAK and 28/20 are bound to rip the Stuarts and Crusaders apart before they close on the converted flak gun. Since the 50mm long outdistances the Crusaders' 2-pounder, Stuarb should be engaged first as the greater threat (Crusaders need to get within MG range before they become a nuisance). With the 88 well behind the other ATGs, it can be used to wipe out any Stuarts that penetrate to the 50s without much fear of retribution.

28/20s, due to their shorter range, ahould be somewhere in between the 50s and 88s so that the 50s can be supported, and the 88s will be screened. Without artillery support and a Crusader C.S. (more than one is helpful since 88s can reach across the board), situating a German PAK-front is one of the worst slaughters in WWII boardgaming.

Morale

In addition to the problems of positioning your ATGs (more a joy than a problem for lucky Feld Marschalls), morale issues need some attention to.

Most ATGs are crewed by 3-6 men, and suffering even one casualty to a machine-gunning tank can create a rather precarious morale situation. If your men are to stick to their guns until the guns are hit and destroyed, something definitely needs to be done.

The solution, for us panzer leaders, is both fitting and beneficial. Since infantry has almost no CAT potential against tanks in Tobruk their ATRs are good for gazelle hunting but not much else, and there are bunches of them, they should be used for cannon fodder to make up casualties to weapon crews (not very realistic due to the lack of ATG training, but what else are riflemen good for in desert tank battles).

By surrounding your ATGs with hedgehogs full of HQ and infantry units, you,ll almost never be machinegunned out of an ATG position, and morale will be kept pretty high (with more bodies, odds are good that your buddy will "go" before you do). And while 88s don't need that much morale booating (11 man crews with 88s fear little), the little 28/20s with three man crews need all the help they can get (the susceptibility of the 28/20s to MG kills of the entire three man crew with one roll is another reason to hide them behind the 50s).

While some Tobruk players prefer to go ATG hunting with tank machine guns as a matter of habit (plus the Designer'e Notes say it's the way to go), it's really a function of what tanks you have and what you're going after.

Crusaders have to machine gun, since their AP shells presumably will go right through splinter shields with little effect most of the time. Matildas, however, despite no HE, must use their tank guns aince it takes forever to close on any position with the tank.

Four Crusaders closing on an ATG from 18 hexes (originally) will only obtain the potential of inflicting 3 casualties within 6 hexes, which is more than sufficient for a 60mm ATG to destroy at least two of the tanks. Ten Crusaders can sit out at 14 hexes and spray MG fire for casualties, which is somewhat effective against 3- to 6-man-crewed ATGs, but the procedure is lengthy and tedious (some German players may fall asleep after a few repetitions), and the stationary tanks make nice targets for the highly accurate 50s, and any 88s sitting a few miles down the road.

Somewhat more exciting and fluid is a charge by Stuarts, who use their HE capability to attempt a disabling hit on the enemy ATG. The maneuver uses fewer tanks, and is much more effective against 88s (when a 13-hex range is obtained) due to the AT gun's excellent morale that can override MG casualties until the "reserves" are depleted. While the few Stuarts are busy trading cannon shots with one ATG, other tanks (freed from static MG duty) can go after other gun positions (10 tanks for each ATG is asking a bit too much, you know).

While in the final accounting it may be more a matter of personal taste which method is utilized (MG vs. HE), the English tendency to charge everything in sight due to an obvious cavalry outlook, is better simulated by the HE procedure where a few tanks use their tank guns while others advance for better shots--although one could always charge without cover fire and attempt an overrun like the British did (but who is that crazy?).

The optimum tactic against ATGs is to protect your tanks by using smoke and HE from artillery and close support tanks (indirect fire from across the board is sure funny "close" support) to neutralize the guns. Smoke will put the big guns out of action while you concentrate on the little guys, and the threat of 60-70 fragmentation factors can persuade a gun crew to load up and move on.

The Experimental Rules

For me, the experimental or optional rules section of a game design represent the really innovative and advanced thoughts of a designer. While the regular rules may have some innovation, they are primarily not that different from the state-of-the-art stuff, and are designed to be assimilated by the majority of gamers who might be frightened by unfamiliar material. The optional tidbits, however, are the kernals of Warp 6 ideas that are felt to be too advanced for their time, but will ultimately become widely accepted (note how slowly Opportunity Fire was introduced into the Panzer Blitz series of games until it became an integral part of Arab-Israeli Wars).

The best of Tobruk's experimental ideas, and one which is more subtle than opportunity fire but just as important to trivia freaks is the advanced movement rules, where tank speed finally is acknowledged with regard to hit probability.

In regular boardgames and every miniatures game I've seen, there has never been any differentiation at all between target speed. If a Matilda moved 100 meters in a turn, and a Stuart flew over 300 meters, the probability of hitting either AFV was the same. No one even considered the effect of motion towards the firing gun versus away from it or across the line of sight, and while you may feel it trivial, the ability of certain vehicles to survive was based on those considerations.

Now, with most wargames around, while armored cars and Stuarts are reasonably fast, when they end their turn in enemy LOS they've usually had it due to their junky defense factors. Using those vehicles for spotting or recon duty is usually a suicidal task, and when they transmutate into a wreck, nobody really notices.

In real life according to the limited data I've seen, once a Stuart or armored car saw the enemy and called in their position or whatever, they used their speed to hightail it out of the hostile areas. Once a 234/4 knew where the ATGs were hidden, would you expect them to sit around waiting for their next turn which is what boardgaming assumes they do (would you sit next to 20 Shermans?).

By decreasing the hit probabilities against vehicles moving anything but towards the enemy, some wargame has finally allowed the Stuart crews to be recognized as anything but the fools they commonly appear to be (who else would ride around in a deathtrap sitting next to 75mm ATGs without any hope of survival in wargames?).

While the rule doesn't mean that everybody should run across enemy LOS and make indirect approaches, it does offer trucks and smaller vehicles a better chance of making it across "no mans land" by using their speed to the utmost. Stuarts attempting to flank enemy posttions or withdraw will also benefit nicely, and in terms of realism the games will improve greatly.

Hopefully, someday one of the designers out there will think up a way to simulate the light tank/armored car's survival instincts in a tactical boardgame or set of miniatures rules (most operational level games now allow recon units to withdraw from combat at no penalty when the enemy attacks, which is an excellent procedure), so that the little guys won't be ao apt to disappear from the boards.

While I've already belabored the issue (Stuarts are my favorite tank since they remind me of the underdog 1962 Mets), their true capabilities and uses can be garnered from the paperback entitled Brazen Chariots now available. For fellow students of the African Campaign and the Stuart tank, I'd highly recommend the book, as the fallacies and oversights of most wargames will become readily apparent after reading an actual tank commander's account of desert war (although quite a bit of B.S. found its way into the memoirs).

Although the ammo rules are a terror to think about, and who want to keep 20 sets of accounts on AFV shells, they point out some interesting points on the tanks and the regular rules.

As previously mentioned, the English tanks did not carry any HE shells as part of their normal ammo, and one can only surmise that they would charge gun emplacements and use close-in MG fire (not my favorite way of doing things). The only mobile HE weapon they used was the Crusader C.S., which was as badly armored as the regular Crusader (usually SPs are better armored than the original vehicle, but the English are "unusual" people), but could fire indirect HE from a distance.

The Crusader C.S., despite being the sole HE threat, also fails miserably if the experimental rules are used. In addition to only holding 40 total rounds, only 10 can be HE. The PzKw IVe, by comparison, held 80 total with a minimum of 40(!) HE shells. Even the Italian Semovente, which would be perhaps inferior to an English SP, held more ammo of all types, and the fragmentation factors of the British 3" howitzer are 30% less than what a Semovente'a HE shell is worth.

It's also somewhat surprising, in view of the standard rules prohibition on initial firing conditions (HPN of 8), to see how many shells some tanks held. The Grant, which is outdistanced by the long 60mm, holds 178 rounds for the 37mm gun (or 30 turns at the acquired ROF). The Mark IIIj, in comparison, only held 78 shells, or less than 20 turns of acquired firing.

While the basic rules probably had to be general in nature to keep things simple in scenario one, in reality the Grant'a 37mm probably could start engaging German tanks way beyond 13 hexes, which would give it a slight advantage in tank duels.

Conclusion

Infantry tactics have not been addressed here because infantry in the desert had limited mobility, and the open nature of the terrain made them hedgehog inhabitants and spare weapons crew members for the most part (besides which I still don't know how to use them). If you go through the basic scenarios you'll see that in most instances, only one side has infantry, and the other does most of its assaulting with tanks.

Tobruk, unlike Squad Leader, for the most part is a limited arms game (ss opposed to combined arms), and tanks and infantry never have to work together to any great extent. The terrain, or lack of, just about nullifies the usual advantages of infantry, and that's the reason why there aren't any rules for infantry using tanks for cover.

The game also does something very strange for a miniatures-oriented simulation. Whereas in miniatures the micro-scale tactics and formations are critical, in Tobruk only the facing of individual tank matters, and the way the groups form and react within the hex is totally glossed over (Tobruk and Panzer Leader both assume the most "advantageous" micro-scale formation, but in different tactical contexts).

Therefore, the advantages of the Panzer Keil (wedge) or the various platoon sizes and maneuvers are sacrificed for the sake of a game that glorifies weapons and statistics. It might make a more interesting game if the Squad Leader approach were taken, and stacking limited, and perhaps in the future Tobruk will go through a renaissance and become one of the better miniature games.

The problem of ATG hunting by tanks, while treated somewhat straightforward in this article previously, can be a complex problem depending on the n,les that are used. Prior to scenario seven, any hit from a tank gun (whether AP or HE) will destroy (F-Kill) the ATG, so a duel between ATGs and tanks is slightly in the tanks favor despite the ATGs first shot capability (hits don't bounce off ATGs like a Stuart or Grant). Direct fire is probably a better approach during the first six scenarios than MG fire, which consumes time and tanks.

In scenario seven, however, the size of a target comes into play, and the little anti-tank guns like 28/20s, PAK 50s and the 75mm ATG benefit enormously. Shooting at a PAK 50 in a weapon pit is almost an impossible task due to the die roll modifiers (+2 in open, +3 a pit). While the smaller target aspect may seem to rule out direct fire (and Tobruk, it should be noted, was the first miniatures game to incorporate target size in its rules to my knowledge), some direct hits can still be anticipated.

In addition, once the target is hit starting in scenario seven, burst considerations make further shots againat ATGs good gambles due to the -3 roll modifier. While bursts don't mean much in scenario seven (the first hit wipes out the gun), starting in the next scenario when the probability of destroying weapons with 40mm or less shells is considerable (AP does it 11% of the time, HE 36%), bursts help out quite a lot.

Depending upon the tanks you're using for tank attacks on ATGs and their armament, and the rules, the advantages of MG fire are not that apparent due to the need to remain atationary while peppering the guns. The ability to move an MG which is introduced in the last scenario (a bad break for the ATG crews who prefer stationary targets) makes the tactic more feasible, since casualties can be inflicted while closing in on the target (the 1/2 decrease in effectiveness is matched by the better range and rapid growth in factors as you close in).

While I previously doubted its validity and intelligence, a straight out-and-out charge of the enemy gun emplacements may not be that bad an approach with speedy tanks like Stuarts and Crusaders, although the Mark IIIs with their average speed, high accuracy tank guns and lethal MGs are probably better off using other tactics. Overruns do away with the need for chancy direct fire, dull MG procedures and the need to think very much, and coupled with moving MG fire present a high-powered and simple approach.

Without the experimental ammo rules allowing tanks to open fire at any range, Crusaders really don't have much choice of tactics (like the original Crusaders they are named after, which were limited to charges) due to the short range of their guns and the occasional ineffeciveness of AP against ATGs (depending on rules). If your Crusaders are within 20 hexes and are in good numbers, you might as well put the tanks in gear and charge, since an overrun is only a turn or two away. Outside of 10 hexes, MGs are only marginally effective and AP is a long shot (pun intended) so an advance is automatic.

While the useless units from Panzer Leader such aa the 75mm LIGs and 81mm mortars are often totally inactive during Tobruk games (their chief duties of blocking terrain in the Panzer Blitz games, having been lost in the game mechanics and wide open terrain), they are vital parts of the tactical approach needed for victory in the desert. The main purpose of the mortars, light infantry guns and heavy artillery in the desert is to blind and harrass the oncoming enemy tanks by smoking them prior to combat (with indirect fire) to increase the survival chances of ATGs, and taking away their initial fire by bombarding them with over 100 factors of HE shells. They can also be used to good effect to neutralize the smoke capabilities of the Crusader C.S. tanks.

The use of smoke in the desert is even more important than it ever was in Russia or France, since almoat no terrain cover is available and guns and infantry have to position themselves out in the open. It's rather obvious that if one is to have any protection at all against the enemy until one is ready to fight, smoke must be used to the greatest extent possible.

With the proper use of smoke, the enemy'a 88, which can wreak destruction at over 30 hexes, can be put out of action by a lowly close support tank miles away. Enemy tanks will be particularly careful to avoid moving in attacks due to the loss of a group of tanks because of fire after being smoked, and tanks spread out over the desert are easier to get flank shots on and lose range on concentration attacks (due to aome being farther out than others).

In spite of the obvious importance of smoke in the desert for cover and giving value to the smaller weapon units, I've seen countless players get caught up in the clash of tanks and ATGs and then overlook the values of artillery and indirect fire. While the infantry has lost some of its value in Tobruk as compared to Panzer Leader, smoke should be an automatic replacement for the infantry as an integral part of the multi-modal approach that is necessary in the game.

As a final point, the most irking situation in Tobruk, and one which is partially attributable to the glut of statistics and numbers, is to advance a tank against an ATG and then lose the vehicle when it is discovered that it is within the guns "kill" range. While it may be a little unrealistic to have tankers know just how close they can approach the enemy with relative immunity (and total knowledge of the opposing gun characteristics), the procedure should be followed, when feasible.

The following chart summarizes the lethal ranges of the ATG s and tank' guns, and if followed may save a few tankers from being "shake-and-baked" (although there isn't enough room on the boards to safely position an M13/40). 88s and 76.2s are also hopeless cases, and need no further publicity.

Enemy Gun Lethal Range Value
British Tanks	50 short	50 long	50 PAK	28/20
Crusader	11	16	16	10
Stuart	11	16	16	11
Valentine	7	16	16	4
Matilda	5	13	13	4
Grant**	5	11	11	3
German Tanks	2pdr	25pdr	6pdr	37mm	76mm
Mark IIIj	0	3	9	0	2
Mark IIIh	15*	7	10	21	7
Marder III	***	***	***	***	***
Mark IVe	12	-	27	25	-
Notes: * Mark IIIh turret hits are lethal at 15 hexes, otherwise the armor is impenetrable (turret hits by all guns can destroy). ** Grant is vulnerable to 75mm F-kills out to long ranges, but probability is only 2.8%. *** Marder III turret can be pierced at any range, and turret hits represent 14% of hits on the tank destroyer.

While this article may have brought up more questions than it tried to answer, the complexity of Tobruk and the subtle characteristics of the weapons systems are such that further research may uncover new and improved methods of handling the diverse and intricate weapons. It is hoped that the limited insights offered herein may inspire more Tobruk fans to hit the "books" and publish their findings on one of the most complex but understudied games on tactical WWII combat.