I first became intrigued by Tank Duel: Enemy in the Crosshairs after doing an interview with Harold Buchanan in the fall of 2016. At that time, Harold and Mike were both working on the project, but due to other commitments, Harold passed the design reigns over to Mike Bertucelli and he has carried the game this far. I reached out to Mike late last year and we have finally been able to bring this inside look to you. In an interesting twist, Jason Carr, who is serving as Developer on the game, has also answered our questions which gives you a deeper look into the design, as well as the process of how the game works. I am grateful that both Mike and Jason answered the questions. Jason, who is also in charge of the solo design, has answered some questions about Robata as well. Onto the interview.
Grant: Mike and Jason, first off tell us a little bit about yourself. What do you do for your real job? What games do you like to play?
Mike: I am retired now, I was a former football coach for high school and I was the head coach for a semi pro football team. I have always had a love for sailing, I have sailed on many different sized boats ranging from 16 foot to 60 foot. Currently, I spend my free time RVing on the coast. Gaming has always been a hobby for me. As a kid, I started with Panzer Blitz and Luftwaffe. I have also played ASL from the beginning, when it was just SL. Today there are just too many games to list. A couple I could list that I like to play off the top of my head are Fighting Formations and High Frontier.
Jason: By day, I’m a software developer. I am self taught, and software development was not my initial career. I studied Philosophy as an undergrad, so I have quite the hodgepodge of experiences. I love software development, especially the problem solving aspects of the job. It’s a fantastic feeling to be able to take a complex problem, break it down, solve each piece, and put it back together.
As far as gaming, I am a relative latecomer to wargaming. I’ve been a gamer for about 15 years, but only played wargames for the last 2-3 years. Today, I play a little bit of everything. I love solitaire games, especially Jerry White’s Enemy Coast Ahead series, Joel Toppen’s First Nations series, and John Butterfield’s D-Day series. Volko Ruhnke is easily my favorite designer, and I love Wilderness War, Labyrinth and the COIN series.
Grant: Mike, I know you have worked with lots of projects and Jason now is serving as developer on Tank Duel. How many different games have you served as the developer for? What did you learn through those experiences that helped you learn about design?
Mike: I have developed Navajo Wars, Comancheria, Fields of Despair, A Distant Plain, Fire in the Lake, Liberty or Death and Falling Sky. One of the big things that I have learned through developing, is how much work goes into the last 10% of game design. There is so much time and work that goes into proofing the rules, final graphics and trying to do your best to make sure we haven’t left a “rattle” in the game, etc. I have learned how to get the game over the finish line, which can sometimes be a challenge, depending on when your deadlines are.
Jason: I have been a playtester for about 10 years, and have worked on games ranging from light party games to heavy wargamers. As a developer, I have less experience. Tank Duel is actually the first game I agreed to work on as a developer. The designer, Mike Bertucelli, and I met at the first GMT Weekend at the Warehouse that I attended. I immediately took to Tank Duel for it’s quick play and saw that it had the potential to reach gamers like I used to be: folks who like conflict in their games but don’t have experience with wargames.
I am developing another game for GMT as well: I am the developer for the upcoming COIN Series title Gandhi: The Decolonization of British India. Working on Gandhi has given me an appreciation for the differences in approach between different designers. With Tank Duel I am working with Mike, who has developed many games himself (Mike is the COIN Series Developer, and worked with Joel Toppen on the First Nations series, among other games). Mike’s approach is that of a developer – deliberate, thoughtful, and systematic, with an eye to not disrupting the game design. With Gandhi I am working with Bruce Mansfield, who has a much more open and creative approach to design. Supporting such different approaches has required me to be flexible and to focus on totally different aspects of the design process. With Tank Duel, I am mostly focused on making the rules as clear as possible and developing the Solitaire system. I am amazed at how hard it is to write rules well. Seriously, if you’ve never tried it, you cannot have an appreciation for how technical and complex it is to write even the simplest of rules.
Grant: What do you like about the board game design process, and for Jason, the development process? What is the most difficult part of the process?
Mike: I think I just answered that second part of this question above, the last 10% is always so challenging. You can see the finish line but you are still so far away. What I enjoy about board game design is working with my team and seeing the game grow from infancy to the final game.
Jason: Developing a game is sort of like developing software. Each game is made of many subsystems, and taking one of those subsystems out, tweaking it, improving it, and putting it all back together is basically what I do as a software developer. As I’ve gotten farther into my career at my day job, I do less hands on work; developing games is a great way to continue to scratch that itch that I have to tinker with complex systems. Where developing games becomes a special challenge is the desire to remain true to the history and teach through the game. This trade off never goes away and is present in every game; what a good designer and developer can do is make sure that the missing detail is below the threshold of relevance for their particular game.
Grant: What was the genesis of Tank Duel? Why did Mike want to design this game?
Mike: Harold Buchanan and I were playing War Thunder & World of Tanks together online and we said, “I bet we can make this into a board game”. A week later, Harold contacted me and said “check this out!”! And we were off and running. Harold and I worked together on Tank Duel for about a year and a half. As you know Harold is a great designer and has many projects that he is working on and decided it would be best if he stepped away from Tank Duel and handed the reigns over to me. We continue to discuss many factors of the game and been very helpful through the process.
Jason: Tanks are fascinating, and tank-to-tank warfare is one of the most spectacular aspects of WW2 combat. Tanks are immediately relatable (just ask my 4 year old son about tanks!) and exciting. With all of that excitement, it’s a natural topic for a game.
Grant: What is Tank Duel about and where did the inspiration for its design come from?
Mike: It’s about tank to tank fighting during World War 2. The engine that drives the game, is a deck of 100 battle cards. Players use these cards to preform tank actions during the game. The inspiration comes from Upfront, combat commander and panzer. I really enjoy all three of those games.
Jason: Mike originally was co-designing Tank Duel with Harold Buchanan (of Liberty or Death fame). Harold decided to hand it off to Mike, and Mike has really put his unique stamp on the game. Mike is a big fan of Panzer, Combat Commander, and Up Front, and all of those games legacies show in Tank Duel. The movement works similarly to Up Front, and cards are used to resolve combat much like Combat Commander. And of course, Panzer is the quintessential treatment of WW2 tank-to-tank combat. Mike’s goal was to take the essence of those games and design something new that could be played in 90-120 minutes.
Grant: What type of an experience are you trying to create for your players?
Mike: I would like the experience to be a game that plays under 2 hours, that is also full of decisions and tense moments.
Jason: Our main goal in developing Tank Duel has been to make the game as tense and exciting as possible. There’s a wonderful moment every time someone fires at an enemy, when they know exactly what card they want to pull of the deck but they haven’t drawn yet. You can cut the tension with a knife. We actually put a line in the rules that players are supposed to draw that card and throw it down on the table so everyone can see it. This leads to fantastic outbursts of excitement or disappointment that really draw people into the game and make it tons of fun.
Grant: How has the game been designed to convey the feelings and difficulties with being a tanker during World War II?
Mike: My goal with the design has been to try and give the player the feeling of being in a steel coffin. Some decisions that need to be made may include:
- Do we keep our acquisition on a tank when a new closer, more dangerous situation appears?;
- Do we take a whole tank turn to load APCR (Armor Piercing Composite Rigid) or do I have enough order icons to quick load the round and fire it on the same turn?;
- My tank is on fire, do I bale out or do we stay in the tank and fight the fire with the possibility of it going out of control and possibly suffering some KIA’s in the process?;
- I have an enemy on my flank with acquisition on my right. Do I move to bring my front to bear on him and lose that acquisition or do I stay in this really good terrain that I’m in?
Jason: A lot of the time, the winner of a tank duel would be whoever saw the enemy first. We really wanted to make the game reflect the importance of spotting the enemy and finding good terrain to hide. At the same time, actually concealing your tank once you’re spotted is hard! Historically only prepared positions really provided true concealment for a tank; commanders in battle were better served trying to outgun their opponents.
Grant: How has the design balanced historical accuracy with playability? What still needs work in this area?
Mike: It’s always a little tricky to keep the historical accuracy with playability and fun. I try to keep the historical numbers, such as the percentage to hit, armor thickness and angles as close to accurate as possible. The challenge with that is the abstract movement mechanic and lack of a physical map on which the tanks are moving. I can see how designers can get caught up in the historical numbers portion of a game and lose the playability and fun factor.
I always try to lean towards playability and fun. If the games isn’t fun to play, who cares what the numbers are. I feel really good about where the game is, it needs very little work with the mechanics at this point.
Jason: Our main scenarios are abstract affairs – we wanted to give players a sandbox in which to play. But we have some historical scenarios that reflect actual battles, and we wanted to do a good job of reflecting the history of tank warfare. To that end, we’ve spent a lot of time getting the details right in the number and seating locations of the crew, the tank armor values, and the firing rating for the different guns. That said, Tank Duel is not a simulation in the typical sense; we’re aiming to convey the feel of tank warfare rather than the details. The historical scenarios are still a work in progress, and are where we’re feeling the pain of balancing accuracy and playability the most.
Grant: How does the Battle Card system work?
Mike: The battle cards are the engine that run the game. Everything a player does during the game requires the play of one or more battle cards. A battle deck consists of 100 cards, these cards are numbered 1-100. These numbers are used like a die roll, like a 100 sided die. Other information on these cards consist of order icons, battle effect icons, and all the information needed to resolve a fire attack.
Jason: Each Battle Card has a number on the lower right corner between 1 and 100; this “Battle Number” is used for initiative bid (lower is better), and for resolving fire actions. The cards also have actions on them that players can perform during their turn, as well as various icons that are used to resolve checks for Spotting, Smoke, Fires, and Explosions.
Grant: What are some examples of the cards and how are they used?
Mike: Move cards; movement Fire cards; firing Terrain cards are used by the tanks for cover. Flank cards allow tanks to maneuver for the opportunity to take a side or rear shot. Leadership cards and Command cards, improves tank actions. Tactic cards counter certain opponents play cards.
Jason: Fire and Move cards are used to fire and move, respectively. These cards have a level printed on them like “Fire 5” which dictates which tanks can use those cards; if a tank’s Fire Level is equal or lower to the Fire Level on the card, then the tank can use that card. This may deteriorate during the game as the tank takes actions, so there’s an aspect of hand management involved in the Battle Cards.
Other cards allow players to flank enemies, move into terrain, or take special actions including responding to other player’s actions.
Grant: How does a player use their Tank Board? What information is tracked on the board? Can we see a recent picture of the board?
Mike: The tank boards contains all the individual tanks information. Such as range, gun information used for firing, a space to hold terrain cards, an illustration of the tank, places to hold crew members and a general information track.
Jason: The tank boards hold all the state for the game: what parts of the tank are damaged, which crew are injured/dead, what range the tank is at, which tanks are spotted, and the tank’s current terrain. It also contains the charts used to resolve firing, so it’s sort of a one-stop-shop for players.
Grant: What are the differences in tank crew members? How do these differences affect game play?
Mike: A tank has at least a driver and a commander, most tanks have between 4-5 crew members. When a crew member is KIA it effects the performance of the tank. For example, if a driver is KIA the tank will not be able to move as well. If a commander is KIA, the tank will not be able to fire and move as well.
Jason: Tankers are highly trained to do their specific job. Obviously, when a crew member can’t do their job, the tank works less efficiently. To model that, we introduce penalties to the Move and Fire level of the tank when the corresponding crew members are killed. So, for example, if your Driver dies, not only is your tank unable to move until you use an action to move someone else into the driver’s seat, but even once you do you’ll suffer a penalty to your Move level (-1 if the assistant driver is driving, -2 if anyone else is driving).
The Commander is the most valuable crew member; not only is he worth the most points, but if he is killed the tank loses Spot on all enemies and suffers a penalty to both the Move and Fire level. So don’t let that guy die!
Grant: How does spotting and acquisition of targets work in the game? What affects these checks?
Mike: Well, you can’t shoot what you can’t see! Some actions make a tank automatically spotted, plus there is a tank action that allows you to spot an enemy tank. A tank can possibly become unspotted by finding some concealment terrain.
Jason: There are basically two ways to spot someone. First, you can use an action to pull a Battle Card from the deck, and if it has the Binoculars icon, you spot the targeted enemy. Think of this as your Commander finding the enemy through his field glasses.
Second, you automatically spot any enemy that Moves or Fires. There’s no way to avoid this when Firing – the giant fireball coming out of the end of your barrel makes it pretty easy to figure out where you are. When you Move, Terrain affords you some protection – if you can successfully Conceal your tank during a movement, players have to remove all Spot markers they have gained for your tank, including the ones they got from that movement. So Firing and Moving always have some risk to them.
Grant: How is movement handled and how do players track range and location without a board?
Mike: Movement and firing share a similar game mechanic. Each move and fire card have a move or fire level number from 1-9. For a tank to be able to use one of these cards, the tank move or fire level must be equal to or less than the fire level number on the card. This is how I can control how the maneuver ability and rate of fire for each tank.
For example, if a tank has a move level of 7, it can use a move card with a level 7 or lower, the same for a fire card. If a tank has a fire level of 5, then it may use a fire card with a level of 5 or lower. The play of a single move card, allows you to move up to 200m forward, backwards or stay at the same range. The play of 2 move cards together, allows you to move up to 400m, the play of a fire card allows you to take a shot at your opponent.
Jason: As mentioned, movement is very abstract. It shares a lot with Up Front, in that you measure your range relative to other tanks, but with the center of the battlefield as an absolute reference. Each tank tracks their distance to the center, and then you add them together to determine range. In addition each tank is either facing your tank, or flanked by your tank. And really, that’s it. As for locations, they are represented by the Terrain cards, so for example: a player can occupy an objective Hill at Range 0 by moving to that Range and placing the objective Hill into their Terrain Box. We tried to keep this very simple.
Grant: What actions are available to players each round?
Mike: There are six possible actions a tank may take during its tank action phase. These actions are; Leadership, fire, move, flank, terrain and discard any. Some of the things you could do with a discard any action would be to spot, attempt to go haul down and load special ammunition.
Jason: Players can Move, Fire, Flank (or traverse to remove a Flank), Enter Terrain (as part of movement), use Tactics, Spot enemies, load APCR Ammunition, go Hull Down, and rearrange their Crew. There’s also a few cards that have special actions on them.
Grant: What types of special ammunition are there and what do they do?
Mike: APCR is all we have for the first game. If the game is popular enough for us to have an expansion, then I will add HEAT for some of the shorter barrel tanks. All the special ammo increases the chance of penetrating shot.
Jason: In this volume of the game, only APCR. APCR grants massively increased penetration of enemy armor, but only at closer ranges. When and how to use APCR becomes a huge point of strategy, since your supplies of the ammo are limited and never replenish during play.
Grant: How is damage resolved and how does damage effect crew morale?
Mike: We have a separate damage deck, if a tank takes a penetrating shot, we will determine the location and pull a card from a damage deck and apply the results. These results could be, crew wounded, KIA, fire, explosion, morale and tank part becoming damaged. The same damaged card that was just used also has a morale check list. If the tank does not pass the check list, then the crew will become broken and will have to rally or may be forced to bail out.
Jason: Damage is resolved with a special deck of cards. These cards are used to check for critical hits, determine damage, and resolve a morale check. Damage is determined using the hit location (turret or hull) and whether the damage was light or heavy, which is determined by the last pulled Battle Card during the Fire Procedure. Damage results can range from injuring or killing crew, to starting a fire or causing an explosion, or even a catastrophic hit that kills everyone in the tank. In that respect it is true to the history, as even minor hits could knock out a tank.
Grant: What types of tanks are included in the game? What are your favorites to play?
Mike: I don’t have a favorite, many of the tanks play differently. They each have their own style of play. The tanks that are included in the game are: Germans – PzKpfw III G, PzKpfw IV Ausf. G, StuG III Ausf. G, PzKpfw V Ausf. A, (Panther) PzKpfw VI Ausf. E (Tiger) and Panzerjäger Tiger (P) (Ferdinand) Russian: T-34/76 M40, T-23/76 M43, T-34/85 M44, KV-85 M43, SU-100 M44 and IS-2m M44.
Grant: Are the German tanks overpowered and how do the Allies have to go about trying to destroy them?
Mike: This all depends on the tank match up that you play. Many of the match ups are very even, but in general, the Russian tanks are worth less in victory points than the German tanks. So, the Germans need to kill 2 for 1 to keep up.
Jason: “Overpowered” is an interesting term. One on one, the German tanks probably have an advantage over their Soviet counterparts, but the German tanks are also worth more points. That means that the Germans need basically a 3-2 kill ratio to win most scenarios. That tends to balance the game pretty well, but the Soviet player needs to not get discouraged by this ratio and keep things in historical perspective.
Grant: How are Victory Points scored and how is victory determined?
Mike: Each tank is worth a set number of Victory Points and each crew member has its own Victory Points. The crew are worth much more than the actual tank, as you can always build more tanks. You become much more invested in each crew member and having them survive. If the tank you are commanding is eliminated, then during the reinforcement phase you will be able to re-enter the battle in another tank. Each tank is just one tank in a larger battle, so this way, you are never out of the game, until the game ends.
Jason: Victory Points come from knocking out tanks, killing enemy crew, and controlling objectives. Players may score points for controlling objectives at the beginning of their turn and again for controlling them at the end of the game.
Grant: How long are games? Why do they seem to be so quick even with up to 8 players? Was this your intent in the design? Why?
Mike: Yes, this was my intent. We would like each game to play in an hour and a half to two hours. We can control the length of the game, by how many times we play through the battle deck. The more tanks in the battle, the more times we play through the battle deck. There is an optional rule, that if you would like a longer game, you may play through an additional battle deck. If you would like a shorter game then you could subtract a battle deck.
Jason: Games run 60-90 minutes once all players know the game, even with many players. This is intentional. Games with lots more players still run about the same number of rounds due to the deck-as-a-game-clock mechanism. Simply, for more players, you run through the deck more times, but use more cards each round. In the end, it balances out. Where the game can get a little longer is if players decide to take a long time making decisions.
Grant: What scenarios are available for play? What is your personal favorite?
Mike: We have 6 generic scenarios and we are working on 4 historic scenarios. Among the 6 generic scenarios we tried to offer a variety of victory conditions. For example, we have Take Hill 818 and the objective is to be the lone side occupying Hill 818. Similar to that one is Hold the High Ground, where there is high ground on both sides of the battle field and the objective is to be the sole side holding the high ground at the end of the scenario.
Some of the other generic scenarios are titled Merging Forces, A Heated Withdrawal and Streets of Steel. We also have 4 historical scenarios. Hungry for Oil is our first historical scenario. These scenarios will give you exact tank match ups and specific scenario rules and Victory Points. My personal favorite might be Hold the High Ground, it always seems to come down to the last shot or last turn or two to see who wins.
Jason: At the GMT Weekend at the Warehouse in April we got to test out one of our historical scenarios with a bunch of game designers: Gene Billingsley, Volko Ruhnke, Trevor Bender, Bruce Mansfield, Jerry White, and of course, Mike Bertucelli. It was an absolute blast and made me really appreciate the level of detail that goes into these historical scenarios. So far, that’s my favorite game of my favorite scenario.
Grant: What has changed through the playtest process? Please give specific examples.
Mike: The process that a game design goes through is quite extensive. The end result is so different from when we started, that you would hardly recognize that it was the same game. Its really very interesting to look back and see all the changes the game has gone through. Most of those changes, are due to play testing and having outstanding developers. As an example of one of those changes, in the beginning we didn’t have a damage deck. Through the process of play testing, we now have a deck of cards that handles all of the damage, plus all of the crews morale.
Jason: Mostly removing things that don’t work the way we intended. Tank Duel has never been a complicated game, and figuring out how to make it simpler to explain without taking away the heart of the game has been a challenge. One way we’ve done that is removing the rules allowing players to play two identical Battle Cards to gain a special effect. That was rarely used, if ever, and it made the rules much harder to write.
There were also a few changes for game balance. One that stands out is Concealment; originally concealment could be ‘gained’ automatically by several cards. Removing this ability made tanks a bit more vulnerable, which in turn made moving a bit more valuable and overall made players play less defensively, which was a great change. Conceal is still valuable, but since it’s never guaranteed you can’t ever be sure you’re safe.
Grant: What has Joe Aguaya and Jason Carr added to the process as the developers?
Mike: I have been very lucky to have two outstanding developers, Joe Aguaya and Jason Carr. Joe has been with me from the very beginning, and Jason came on board about half way through the process. Both have been very hands on with the design and the development.
For example, Joe has been in charge of the 220 cards that are in the game. From layout to updating the vassal module, amongst other things. Jason has been involved with the rule book and designing the solitaire system. Without these two developers, this game would not be as good as it is without them. I am so very thankful to have both of them.
Grant: Jason, as you took the lead on the solo design, the next few questions are directed at you. What was your inspiration for the solo play mechanic?
Jason: When I joined the Tank Duel team, Mike had an idea for solo play but he was planning it for an expansion. I spent a lot of time playing Tank Duel against myself. Playing over and over and over and over against yourself is a great way to sap your enthusiasm for a game (although, to Mike’s credit that never really happened to me). So I was pretty hungry for Solo play, but pretty naive when it game to Solitaire gaming. In fact, I had never played a Solitaire wargame.
So really this was a case of necessity being the mother of invention. When Mike heard my idea he was keen to make it work since it didn’t require many additional components. So he gave me a crash course on Solitaire gaming – Enemy Coast Ahead, Comancheria, D-Day at Omaha Beach. I explored a few designs on my own, especially Conflict of Heroes’ excellent Solitaire module, and all of those games have influenced my design. That said, “Robata” (the name for the Solitaire system) is not really comparable to any of those things.
Grant: With a fast playing card based game, what were your parameters for the solo side? Did you ever consider using flow charts? Why or why not?
Jason: It’s a little disingenuous to say there are no flow charts in Robata. What I have said is that Robata is not flow chart based, and I guess that depends how you think about a flow chart. Right now, Robata uses a series of priorities to decide what to do and enhances those actions based on what cards get pulled for that action. So the coarse grained decision making uses priorities, and the fine grained decision making uses the cards themselves.
My goal with Robata was to make a turn take about the same time for a human player and for each Robata tank. Right now, I can more or less manage that, but it ebbs and flows depending on what actions Robata takes. A COIN style flow chart would really not work well to meet that goal; by deferring the fine grained decisions to the cards, it’s much easier to narrow the decision space and enable Robata’s decisions to be executed more quickly.
Grant: What was your toughest challenge with Robata and how did you overcome it?
Jason: With a card game like Tank Duel the biggest challenge is how to handle the opponent’s hand of cards. There’s several approaches to this; for example Labyrinth deals the Jihadist player a hand of cards and plays randomly, resolving the effects per a set of charts. I didn’t like that approach for Tank Duel (although it’s great for Labyrinth), so Robata works a lot differently. This was necessary to keep the player guessing as to what the enemy will do.
Grant: What are the basic ways the solo game works?
Jason: For basically every action, Robata reveals 3 cards from the top of the Battle Deck (sometimes more, sometimes less, but usually 3). Based on what cards are revealed, Robata will take one of a number of actions – Does it have a good shot? Then it should fire! Is it vulnerable? Then Move into Cover – and attempts to take the preferred action. This is not a guaranteed success, and if it fails, Robata has a series of backup priorities. The actions themselves work more or less the same as the regular game, but the specific cards revealed will modify the actions.
For example, players can play a Leadership card to modify a Fire action with a +20 To Hit Modifier. Robata wants to draw a Leadership card to get that Modifier, and when it does it is more likely to Fire.
Grant: What have been players reactions to solo play?
Jason: We’re just entering playtesting for Robata, but so far folks have liked it. It’s relatively quick to resolve and lets the player play their turns exactly the same as a multiplayer game of Tank Duel. I’m expecting some changes from playtesting, but I think the core of the system is solid.
For more information on Robata, Jason wrote a really good article for InsideGMT that gives more background at the following link: http://www.insidegmt.com/?p=16896
Grant: Mike, what is the timeline for the release of the game? Are you pleased with the response on P500?
Mike: The release of the game is scheduled for early 2019, but we may be able to sneak it in a bit earlier…….possibly. I am really happy with the P500 numbers, and as we reveal the final graphics, order numbers are growing nicely. By the time of release we should have a solid P500 number.
Grant: What is next for Mike Bertucelli?
Mike: Play something other than Tank Duel lol……No seriously, if the game is well received and people want an expansion, I have one ready to go. It would include the western front with American tanks and western theater terrain. In addition, North Africa with British and German tanks plus desert terrain.
I want to thank both of you Mike and Jason, first for doing this interview and hanging in there with me, but also for your hard work on this design. I am sure that this game will be well received as wargamers are looking for a fast playing realistic tank game like this one, that most importantly has a working solitaire variant for when we can’t “Spot” any opponents!
If you are interested in Tank Duel: Enemy in the Crosshairs, you can preorder a copy on the GMT Games website for $55.00 from the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-615-tank-duel-enemy-in-the-crosshairs.aspx