Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WynnterGreen

AT Guns: Problems and How to Solve Them?

Recommended Posts

Excellent news indeed.

I wasn't really suggesting the PAK43 should be getting wheeled around much, at 3600kg as compared to a PAK38s 830kg, it's a behemoth.

It was more just for interest sake.

Although there's 'all hands on deck' in the first PAK40 image, I think the others show that maneuvering was still a realistic option for the guns crew.

Which it sounds like you've taken into account in the adjustments you've announced.

Also just for interest, a Russian 45mm.

ATG45-pull.jpg

Brit 2pounder

2-pdr-River.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bone!

It seems the programmers are keeping you on a very short leash and you are forced to keep playing the animator for the eagerly waiting masses. :D:P

Nah, I can say whatever I want. Charles never reads this Forum :D

I wasn't really suggesting the PAK43 should be getting wheeled around much, at 3600kg as compared to a PAK38s 830kg, it's a behemoth.

It was more just for interest sake.

Yup, understood.

Also just for interest, a Russian 45mm.

This shows why the pre-war small calibre AT Guns stuck around as long as they did. Small and nimble has some battlefield advantages. It also shows what I said about the US AT Field Manuel. The text was almost certainly written with the US 37mm in mind, which tactically is a totally different beast compared to the 57mm and 76mm guns. I've seen this sort of thing with other manuals that were continuations of pre or early war doctrine. They don't even bother to update the photos sometimes.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap that Finnish soldier front and center (the one that at quick glance appears to be moving the whole damn gun himself) looks like one mean sob. Hate to run into him on a bad night. :eek:

Glad to hear about the possible upcoming changes. Maybe some of the purist out there won't like it but I don't mind seeing these guns get a little more love as it presents greater tactical options imo. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy crap that Finnish soldier front and center (the one that at quick glance appears to be moving the whole damn gun himself) looks like one mean sob. Hate to run into him on a bad night. :eek:

Heh... I saw that guy too. You old CMBB folks will remember discussions here about the legendary "AT Toothpicks" that the Finns used to defeat Soviet armor during the Winter War. I think that guy might have had 4 or 5 knock outs to his credit before they found him a gun to lug around!

Glad to hear about the possible upcoming changes. Maybe some of the purist out there won't like it but I don't mind seeing these guns get a little more love as it presents greater tactical options imo. :)

I see that being the case. The current portray is very good, overall, for portraying ATGs in prepared positions and improvised positions that are setup in sufficient time (which, of course, most gamers likely don't do ;)). The tweaks on the way should expand that to better simulate inbetween cases where the guns are generally where they need to be, but need to be moved to firing positions on very short notice.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or out of to at least give it a fighting chance. My biggest gripe was it was just to hard to get it out of harms way when twenty virtual feet could make all the difference. I understand that is hard to represent that kind of finesse in the game but in smaller actions that one gun could literally mean getting run over or surviving to fight a couple more minutes and make something happen. As is, most of the time the crew is fighting the gun more than the enemy it seems. Honestly if I saw a threat and it was either bail or contemplate waiting four minutes to limber the gun up to move it twenty feet I know what I'd do! I'd pop smoke like a champ. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve et al.,

Great news and splendid pics! Some points I'd like to mention:

Obsolete in short order or not, the Russians fought their 45mm ATGs all the way across Russia and right into Berlin. The 45mm ATG was the chief Russian ATG even at Kursk. Speaking of the Russians, both 45mm gunner Litvin (Clark) and ZIS-3 gunner Monyushko (I Remember.ru) explicitly talk about having shrapnel for use against infantry trying to capture the guns. ISTR Litvin actually used it. They clearly differentiate shrapnel from HE, too. People here may also be interested to know that the U.S. 57mm ATG has canister as a standard round for the same purpose. Pest removal! The U.S. 3-Inch towed ATG has no canister round, just HE.

All in all, I'm delighted with both the wonderful, civilized discussion and the apparent progress made in getting our concerns addressed here. Steve, it's always nice to see you actively participating in a grog thread, particularly given that your plate generally overflows onto the table! Reminds me of those halcyon days of yore in which you weren't as frantically busy.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One outgrowth of this is that we're no longer going to allow the PAK43 to be moved around. The amount of effort, and the limited conditions where possible, are simply outside of CM's scope. The short moves that are viable, even if difficult, for other ATGs really aren't applicable for these beasts. These guns must be set up "before the battle" and left in place. Even for a multi hour long battle it's highly unlikely that the guns could be both used and moved within the setting.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do look forward to seeing them in the bigger maps and doing the whole reach out and touch you routine. From that distance they really aren't that big I'd wager and maybe not quite the barndoor moniker :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

Steve, I completely understand and agree with your logic re the immobility of the Pak 43 with regard to trundling the gun, but may we please have the ability to fire the Flak 18, Flak 36, Flak 37 and Flak 41 (uses same SdAnh 202 trailer as other listed 88 models) while on tow (p. 43) per TM E9-369A German 88mm Gun Materiel, Chapter 2, IV. Operation, 21a?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/TM/PDFs/TME9-369A_Germ88.pdf

The above authoritative source (p. 8) lists the estimated times to bring the 88 in and out of action in its full cruciform configuration. The times (2.5 minutes to set up, and 3.5 minutes to pack up) are well within CM time frames.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three basic technical complaints as I see it:

1. Rotation speed

2. Pushing speed

3. Ability to take cover far from the gun

Do you feel that the ability to triangulate the position of unspotted AT guns (and other units) by their firing sound is not an issue?

All these changes are nice but it was cover and concealment , not mobility, that was the best defense for towed AT guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does that include moving it towed?

Id guess so, as is right now, the pixelmen have to move the gun even if just a few feet to the transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

I'm curious why the Pak 43 isn't towable now and therefore won't be, especially in light of the very substantial truck which apparently towed in the Pak 43 in the pic? there's a logic here which clearly escapes me.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Pak43 currently can not be towed and there is no plans on making it towable.

Oh - yes. Now I remember. Thanks for the answer.

@JK - IIRC there has already been a lengthy discussion why it's not towable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pak43 (not the Pa43/1) is like the Flak36 in that it has no attached wheels. Therefore, it's not something that was tossed about the battlefield willy nilly, but instead carefully placed and then moved between battles when it was safe. The Pak43/1 is similar, though obviously less troublesome to move relative to the others.

Bottom line is these weapons were not used for improvised roles. They were higher level assets that were deployed ahead of battles, not during. They were also removed prior to battles, not during. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but that's not a concern to us.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFC,

The discussion in the Towed TD FM said it was better to put smoke on the enemy than on one's own positions; that this was far more affective in screening repositioning or withdrawal of the guns. But I thought the opposite was true in the game? Isn't the force closer to the smoke able to see out far better than the farther away force trying to see in? Which one's right, please?

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: No Brainer. Related to Quotes Ages ago. Sorry for that.

+1 for making ATGs more usefull

In H2H you see the lack of tactical value of those and almost always choose a Hetzer or any SPG even in Attack/Defend engagments. The lack of mobility compared to other

assets is making ATGs a no-go to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In H2H you see the lack of tactical value of those and almost always choose a Hetzer or any SPG even in Attack/Defend engagments. The lack of mobility compared to other

assets is making ATGs a no-go to most of the people playing that Game.

I think that looking onto them as Steve stated is fine. No Magical improvemtens but a bit more mobility would be great. But ATGs are not unuseful per se. Their First Shot capability is a pain in the A** right now and in most cases right now you have to sacrifice 1 Armored Unit before you get a "?" Icon of the Gun. After that its almost useless because of the lack of Mobility. So i think the truth lies somewhere inbetween.

As it is right now in Gameterms they are one the one Hand impossible to spot (because players Spot in PBEM with other units on the Far Mapedge the Tank and give the ATG a hide command wich makes them not spotable and unhide them when the ET is close enough) and on the other Hand to easy to spot in Trenches or Foxholes because experienced Players will pepper spotted Foxholes/Trenches with 1-2 Shots if they are seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came across something on the excellent Archive Awareness site that bears on the ATG discussion. Seems the Russians were sent two 17-pounder under Lend Lease. Their military-technical evaluation makes fascinating reading, but one item particularly stood out.

"It is not possible to push the gun 500 meters by hand over rough terrain. The 7 man crew can only push the gun 100 meters on flat terrain. Pushing the gun is further complicated by a lack of convenient rails."

This implies that one of the Russian requirements for weapons of this class is that it be can be manhandled, using just the crew, over rough terrain for 500 meters. Also of note is the mention that it has a "low coefficient of metals," which I think means relatively little gun per unit weight. A resource inefficient weapon, in other words. It's here. Not a link

Archive Awareness 17-pounder Trials

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
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
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...