Jump to content

ATG vs Armor... Cost/benefit?


Recommended Posts

Perhaps part of the problem, or at least an aggravating factor, is that people are driving tanks faster than would be the case IRL over many kinds of terrain. As has been stated in these pages ad nauseum, vision from the inside of an AFV was severely limited, especially when buttoned up. The consequences of a track hitting a stump or a stone could end up being fatal, or at least the major inconvenience of having your tank immobilized until it could be repaired. Dangerous obstacles can easily hide in tall grass until you are right on top of them. It might be necessary to perform emergency maneuvers to avoid them, and that is far more practical at a slow to moderate speed. If people are getting away with driving at Quick or even Fast speeds off road, then the game should impose a higher probability of immobilization.

Michael

Once again ad nauseum, Sir Michael nails it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps part of the problem, or at least an aggravating factor, is that people are driving tanks faster than would be the case IRL over many kinds of terrain. As has been stated in these pages ad nauseum, vision from the inside of an AFV was severely limited, especially when buttoned up. The consequences of a track hitting a stump or a stone could end up being fatal, or at least the major inconvenience of having your tank immobilized until it could be repaired. Dangerous obstacles can easily hide in tall grass until you are right on top of them. It might be necessary to perform emergency maneuvers to avoid them, and that is far more practical at a slow to moderate speed. If people are getting away with driving at Quick or even Fast speeds off road, then the game should impose a higher probability of immobilization.

Michael

The way tanks are used in the game may not be the same as it was IRL but the problem is that AT guns in the game are not coping with the tanks in the game at short to medium ranges the way that they did IRL. The guns are spotted too easily and the guns are too slow on the trigger to cope with the fast spotting and reaction time and accuracy of the tanks. It seems to me that the tanks in the game are endowed with better spotting ability and reaction time and accuracy than they were IRL and the guns are pretty much the same as they were IRL except that they can't be concealed very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way tanks are used in the game may not be the same as it was IRL but the problem is that AT guns in the game are not coping with the tanks in the game at short to medium ranges the way that they did IRL. The guns are spotted too easily and the guns are too slow on the trigger to cope with the fast spotting and reaction time and accuracy of the tanks. It seems to me that the tanks in the game are endowed with better spotting ability and reaction time and accuracy than they were IRL and the guns are pretty much the same as they were IRL except that they can't be concealed very well.

I don't disagree. I feel that the spotting and reaction from within tanks is rated too highly and also that they are allowed to move too fast. If all those things are fixed, it might not be necessary to do anything to the guns. Does anybody feel that they are spotted too easily by infantry?

+ Does anybody get the feeling that this game was designed by tank fans?

:D

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+ Does anybody get the feeling that this game was designed by tank fans?

Haha! No. Bocage Tanks!

If anyone cares to read the US Intelligence Bulletins for NA there are AFAIR examples of 88's being hidden to the extent that only the barrel was visible ...... in one case quoted a single 88 was not spotted for a day though it was firing.

Regarding the 40mm I actually worked with a guy who was on a Bofors in Italy. Not much action but in the mountains they would use the Bofors on individual enemy MG nests as they outranged them and were pretty accurate.

40-mm LAA guns firing AP were also used successfully on a few occasions, 40-mm AP was fired as aimed single rounds not bursts. In 1942 its Forward Area Sights Mks 1 - 3 were modified to make them suitable for engaging armoured vehicles.
I suspect that this was especially for Hannomags : )

Actually 600yards was a good range for an ATG like the 6pdr as proximity increased its chances of penetration and allowed for slight angles that might increase effective armour. Obviously much depended on the tank and the tactical situation. The British ATG's were trained to choose the most dangerous target which would be stationary tanks as opposed to moving tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha! No. Bocage Tanks!

If anyone cares to read the US Intelligence Bulletins for NA there are AFAIR examples of 88's being hidden to the extent that only the barrel was visible ...... in one case quoted a single 88 was not spotted for a day though it was firing.

At what range was that? At "long" (over 1000m, so more long-medium for an 88) range, I've had a PaK43 remain unseen for an entire scenario, screened by bushes, It got about half a dozen vehicle kills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall it saying but I got the impression it was longish. If my memeory is not playing me false I do believe a respondent mentioned an 88 at 200 metres not being spotted. In that case it was not firing!

I cannot recall if it was deserted but certainly the camouflage was excellent. I will see if I can locate those excerpts sometime.

Congratulations on your success with the Pak43 - very encouraging. Out of curiosity was it against the AI or a human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall it saying but I got the impression it was longish. If my memeory is not playing me false I do believe a respondent mentioned an 88 at 200 metres not being spotted. In that case it was not firing!

I cannot recall if it was deserted but certainly the camouflage was excellent. I will see if I can locate those excerpts sometime.

Congratulations on your success with the Pak43 - very encouraging. Out of curiosity was it against the AI or a human.

Human. I had a PaK40 a bit closer, and it took 3 or 4 shermans before my opponent got his arty falling in the right bit of cover. Forgot to ask if he got a good spot on it, or just moved the beaten zone around when it failed to curtail the shenannigans. The Tiger got spotted much sooner than either gun, even though it was further away. Fortunately, the arty directed at it merely immobilised it in the firing location I'd selected which didn't do my opponent much good...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I enjoy stationary ATGs.

They're dirt cheap, and I love the challenge of placing them in a location where they will be difficult to spot and can get the first shot off. If placed well, they should be able to get the drop on your opponent's AFVs. If they kill the first AFV they encounter, then they've already double or tripled their points, even if they are doomed to be mortared to death shortly thereafter. The only problem I've run into is when your opponent is a fan of using forward scouting armored cars or light tanks. You can kill those with the ATG, but your gun does not get nearly as much bang for its buck as a result.

I also enjoy the scurrying around that takes place after the ATG is destroyed and you're left without long-range anti-tank capabilities in that sector of your defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I enjoy stationary ATGs.

They're dirt cheap, and I love the challenge of placing them in a location where they will be difficult to spot and can get the first shot off. If placed well, they should be able to get the drop on your opponent's AFVs. If they kill the first AFV they encounter, then they've already double or tripled their points, even if they are doomed to be mortared to death shortly thereafter. The only problem I've run into is when your opponent is a fan of using forward scouting armored cars or light tanks. You can kill those with the ATG, but your gun does not get nearly as much bang for its buck as a result.

I also enjoy the scurrying around that takes place after the ATG is destroyed and you're left without long-range anti-tank capabilities in that sector of your defense.

:)

I quite like moving ATGs. In bocage country at least. You can actually sometimes get kills if your opponent doesn't expect effective AT assets in a particular sector. Perhaps they've totted up your points in a QB and decided they must've seen all your armour, or paid attention to their intel in a scenario, so they park a tank all fat and happy well out of range of man portable AT and start blasting away...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATGs were certainly cheaper to produce, but there were not dramatically more of them.

The Russians fielded around 160,000 of them if you include the 76mm divisional guns, most of which were used in the div arty though that meant dual roles - compared to 102,500 AFVs built, about 20k at the start of the war, and 7.5-10k more in lend lease vehicles received. That is only a count of the major ATG types (45mm early and late models, 57mm, 76mm), so there might be more like 1.5 ATGs per AFV rather than 1.25 times, but it is within a factor of 2.

Similarly, the Germans fielded 50K AFVs and about 50K heavy AT weapons, more if you include the early war light stuff, but again staying within those modest factors.

ATGs died faster in use than AFVs did, because they were more poorly protected in front line action, vulnerable to loss from artillery and other over the horizon HE (air etc), and much less mobile when the front moved on you, operationally speak (lots had only horse drawn transport etc).

From overall loss figures, we know the average ATG never took out an AFV opposite, undoubtedly because those other causes of loss KOed many of them before they had a chance, and then many lost their coin flip duels with enemy tanks, if they did get a chance to engage in their intended role. They would usually be outnumbered locally when that happened, for the concentration vs dispersed reason others already mentioned. As a tactically less mobile weapon, they could not match the concentration of the AFVs they faced.

For all these reasons, they might be cost effective based on little invested in them, but neither significantly more numerous nor more effective than AFVs. Their big edge is in stealth, the ability to exploit terrain cover before firing, and where that and some local numbers for mutual support could be fully used, they could be quite effective vs. tanks.

Beyond the initial trigger pull, they could also be more effective against enemies with poor HE (early war, the Brits with their 2 pdrs longer than others, etc) and poor tank artillery cooperation (from doctrine, or lack of radios e.g. with early war Russians, etc).

In the game the most important thing is to locate them correctly, predicting where enemy armor will appear but not using wide LOS spots that draw replies from the whole enemy force. If you just put them "up", they will get shots but also die quickly; if just "keyholed" they might be more survivable but might be out of position for any kind of shot, for the whole scenario.

The trick is to position several of them so that their fields of fire cross, and enemy armor has to come into view for one of them at least, or remain so far back it can't hurt your own infantry and other forces. You can also use other forces as "bait", to draw enemy tanks to locations they can see - light armor can be particularly good for this, since the enemy wants to outmatch those with his full tanks.

Another way to get a "sight picture" that will get some spots but not take replies from the whole enemy force is a reverse slope set up, so they can KO any enemy armor that comes across your chosen "defended crest", but his overwatching mortars and FOs can't see beyond that crestline to reply. This is called separating the enemy "front to back".

I hope those points help...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some stuff from Tankers in Tunisia

I have replacements that have never shot a rifle. They came from Fort Knox from the Cooks' and Bakers' School. They came with pistol belts and rifles. Most have never fired. I have six of them.

SERGEANT WILLIAM T. ETRITGE, Company "I", 6th Armored Infantry, Maknassy, 5 April 1943.

...................................

German antitank gunnery has made our reconnaissance a particularly tough job. They drag their big 88-mm guns up behind their tanks and drop them in position. Usually the crew digs the gun in a hole, twelve by twelve by six feet deep, practically covering up the shield and exposing only the barrel of the gun. We've found those guns particularly hard to locate and they can break up your entire show if you don't pick them up in time. Apparently they use mats to hide the muzzle blast. Once we hunted a gun within a thousand yards for three days and then only found it by spotting the personnel approaching the gun position.

......................

Four 88-mm guns, if dug in, are a match for any tank company. They are the most wonderful things to camouflage I have ever seen. They are very low to the ground. You can watch the fire coming in, little dust balls on the ground give them away and show how low they are. They just skip along the ground. The pit is 12 by 12 by 6. The gun looks like a pencil or black spot. The shield is level with the piece and all you can effectively see is the tube. The crew is even dressed in Arab clothes, and they do everything to camouflage their position. You can get them out with high explosive ammunition, with your artillery. If a tank gun can find them, you can get them out. Over 1200 yards there is no use worrying about them. Their shells bounce off the medium tank at that range. Under 1200 yards, watch out. The enemy's gunnery stinks at long ranges. I feel that our men are better. If we can fight a tank for a tank and a gun, I think we can do it, and that is giving them great odds, because I would say the gun is worth four tanks, but we can do it.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL L. V. HIGHTOWER, Executive Officer, 1st Armored Regiment, First Armored Division. (Commanding Officer, 3rd Battalion, 1st Armored Regiment, during battles of Faid Pass and Sidi bou Zid.) 1 March 1943.*

.............................................

That sand mound might be a good German gun position (he pointed to a sand mound 200 yards away); you couldn't see the gun from here.

LIEUTENANT LASELL, Company "D", 1st Armored Regiment, Krerouf, 11 April 1943.

....................................

We have now learned to move over normal dry bunch-grass terrain without dust.

During the February 15th Sidi bou Zid battle, part of our reconnaissance trapped on top of Lessouda Mountain observed dustless German tanks creeping at very low speed, for many hours, to reach proper position for a surprise attack.

COLONEL TALBOTT:

.............................

What do you do?

I am the tank driver of tank number one.

I stopped. You always stop when they fire.

What about stabilizers?

The stabilizers do not work on rough ground. Our stabilizer was in maintenance, and they did not fix it in time.

Did you worry about it?

No, sir.

PRIVATE RAYMOND CHRISTY, Company "C", 751st Tank Battalion (M), near Fondouk, 12 April 1943

................................................

The Germans' 50-mm antitank guns are more damaging than the 88-mm, because they are harder to find and so many more of them.

Smoke is indispensible when caught under antitank fire; and is especially useful when working with infantry, to point out objectives such as antitank guns; to screen their movements; and to cover them while clearing mines. It is also useful for recovery of vehicles. Keep on your own side of the smoke.

A BRITISH GENERAL OFFICER OF THE WIDEST TANK EXPERIENCE, Tunisia, 16 April 1943.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also enjoy the scurrying around that takes place after the ATG is destroyed and you're left without long-range anti-tank capabilities in that sector of your defense.

That's why there should be more than one of them with overlapping coverage. I've banged on this drum before, going all the way back to CMBO. It's why you should buy multiples of anything critical to your defense/attack. That way, when you lose something (inevitably), you still have something left to work with. If you can't afford multiples of a thing, get multiples of something else that will work. E.g., if you can only afford one Tiger, delete it and buy a platoon of PzKW IV instead. They may not have the same über testosterone factor, but they'll still get the job done when your Tiger is sitting immobilized where it can't spot any targets.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan8325,

I don't know about in CMFI, but a Sherman is exactly the kind of Pak 38 target that rates PzGr40, German "T" rounds, in the game.

No PzGr40 means flank or rear shots with PzGr39, absent favorable geometry, such as Sherman coming downhill and gun above, negating much of the slope protection.

Any antitank gun that can't be detected is, by definition, dangerous. And small guns are, of course, easier to hide than 88s. I think that British tank officer quoted spent a lot of time in poorly protected cruiser type tanks, through which the Pak38 could knock holes with ease. Ditto if he served in M3 Honeys. He must've been thrilled when the Grant and the Sherman showed up. He might, though have gone the Matilda, valentine, Churchill route, but I doubt it. They were few compared to the other types.

On Iwo Jima (?) the Japanese shot up practically an entire Marine Sherman tank battalion using 47mm guns and no tungsten ammo in an apparent fire sack type defense from prepared positions. This was after the Marines had left the beach and driven inland.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan8325 - he did say "and so many more of them", so he did not mean per item. Also, he was a Brit higher up speaking in early 1943, so his comment probably reflects time spent in the western desert when the tanks were much lighter, 88s not very numerous, and 50mm PAK at the top end of the AT weaponry in theater. Also he was an armor officer - infantry tanks might lead to a different assessment than Crusaders, Stuarts, and older "Cruisers", etc. I sincerely doubt towed 50mm PAK did much damage to full Shermans. 75mm PAK, certainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we tend to assume no penetration means no result however in RL coming under fire from an ATG you could not locate, or being worried about immobilisation or flank shots probably did have a deterrent effect. Depending on orders you might bull it out or decide on another route.

A general rule being you do not find ATG's singly would also be a consideration. And side on a Sherman would be penetrated at 500m+. Actual kills of Shermans by 50mm is surely a function of range and position so in close country or town then I am sure the 50mm could be dangerous

US Intelligence Bulletin report 1943

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/50mm/index.html

to give some feel to the matter

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/50mm/index.html

The interesting thing in game terms is really how well can they be hidden compared to alternative ATG's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...