AT Guns: Problems and How to Solve Them?

[Battlefront.com]

Pointing out a bunch of reasons why ATGs are limited as compared to their real world counterparts and making a statement that they're not currently a viable option in the game because of those limitations it is hardly 'extreme'.

Your view is "extreme" because it is not a reflection of reality. ATGs are perfectly viable in CM right now, today, when used according to how they were used in real life. People have been using ATGs in the game for years now. If they were truly, and utterly, useless do you think it would have taken this many years to get to improvements? Absolutely not. I guarantee it.

Nor am I a voice in the wilderness on the subject, not that the number of people who hold a position necessarily aquaints to it's veracity.

You've made an excellent case for the need to change things. You've backed that up with some very good arguments and data. Many people, including me, have agreed with you that there's a need for improvement. So why go and spoil it by overstating the shortcomings of the current state of the game?

I don't see how pointing out current shortcomings equates to not being satisfied with hypothetical improvements.

I haven't asked for anything unrealistic or given any indication that I expect 'magical improvements'.

I've already explained my opinion (which should carry a bit of weight) that there won't be a dramatic and overwhelming amazing transformation of ATG/IGs behavior. Since your view is so negative towards ATG/IGs, I'm doubtful that the changes will be enough to satisfy you. But of course that's for you to decide once you get to play with the changes. All I'm trying to set reasonable expectations relative to how much change you seem to think is needed.

The reeneactor stuff was merely a tool for comparison.

No one ever suggested that what the reenactors did should be translated 1 to 1 into the game.

It was evidence, where evidence is scarce, of a disconnect between what can be physically done in the real world and what we see performed in the game environment.

To that end,it served it's purpose.

Agreed. However, I make it a routine habit to try and ensure everybody reading a thread like this understands the difference between a video like that and what it's like in real life. I've been doing this a long time and my experience is that a large number of people equate text book, test range, or reenactor results as the standard we should shoot for. They serve as a useful point of reference, for sure, but not definitive data points.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Here's excellent footage of Italian SS bringing a Pak 40 into action. The gun is uncamouflaged, swiftly turned around by the trails and pushed up a steepish rock strewn path before being brought into action.

Sure, but I see a crew struggling, I see edits, and I don't see the whole chain of events. Such a bit of video is utterly and totally useless because nobody is saying they can't move a gun, it's about how quickly it can be done.

One thing CM doesn't do to match real life is introduce uneven and random movement. When you move anything from A to B in real life the pace of movement is never uniform. And the longer you go, and the more diverse the terrain, the more opportunities for speed to be varied. Might make great progress for 10m and then spend minutes negotiating 2m. Gamers don't accept this sort of reality so we've never attempted to simulate it. Would be pretty easy to do, though.

I find myself forced to disagree with your notions of the tactical employment of ATGs. I've clearly shown that U.S. doctrine, reflected in the pertinent FMs, was to have an alternate firing position for each towed ATG, a position to which the gun was to be moved after firing from the primary position--whether or not actual fortifications had been dug. Additionally, the U.S. field fortification drawings quite clearly show the ATG has an in battery (up and ready to shoot) and an out of battery (rolled down a prepared slope, thus out of enemy sight) location.

You need to read the manual more carefully It explicitly states:

"Usually alternative positions should not be occupied under fire or when enemy fire is immanent"

Explain how this doctrine is applicable within a typical CM battle since the whole point of a CM battle is to have "immanent" fire. Oh, and nowhere does it say the gun is to be pushed from the Primary to Alternative positions. It does remind the reader that this is optimal and "when time permits", which may or may not be applicable to a given CM battle's setting.

Plus, US crews complained bitterly about the 57mm ATG being damned near impossible to move. This wouldn't be the first time where doctrine and reality have a bit of a disagreement. Though it is understandable since the doctrine was originally developed for the much lighter 37mm ATG.

Theoretical doctrine helps frame the discussion, but on its own it's not definitive evidence of actual use.

To me the Alternative positions are there after the Primaries are compromised. A German Tank company comes up, the ATGs shoot at the tanks, the tanks shoot back and then retreat. The ATGs would have a death wish to stay in the same area. They need to move sufficiently far away that directed fire would not accidentally hit their new positions, yet still in a position to cover the same approach. That distance would probably preclude movement by hand at all or at least quickly.

I've also shown that both the Germans and the Russians did the same thing and have provided a Russian combat engineering study of German field fortifications on the one end, and a clear account by a ZIS-3 gunner for the other. At times, the Germans even built a kind of underground garage in which the gun was kept, ready to be rolled out of cover, up the slope and into battery.

With a lot of time and opportunity, anything is possible. But as we all know, CM is not about simulating deeply fortified areas. Therefore "cover positions" (as the manual calls them) need to be improvised and close to the firing position. You can do both in the game right now, though I agree the things we're planning on improving will make them easier to handle.

Nor do I necessarily agree with your notion that ATGs can't be used offensively. Rommel certainly did in the Western Desert. He'd come charging in with his armor, and, cloaked in the dust the Panzers made, he'd bring up his ATGs and deploy them. Not to mention the 88s which fought while still on their tows. The Panzers would then feign a retreat, in would rush the British, impaling themselves on the unsuspected gun line. Then, with the British formations now in shreds, the Panzers would wade back into the fray.

That's standard towed ATG doctrine. The thing is in most conditions it is not practical to do this within the timeframe of what a CM battle is all about. Nor is it even possible to do in many situations because of terrain considerations which Rommel didn't have to cope with in the desert. Which is to say it isn't impossible to do this in CM right now, it's just not a typical part of a battle and it is, as in real life, very difficult to pull off. Even more difficult in CM because Player As God problem makes countering such actions much easier than in real life. The deficiencies in ATG's movement behavior is a relatively minor issue compared to these others.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

In CMBN terms, were the ATGs (note plural) handled well (bang off some shots, pull gun out of battery, close trails, hitch up and go)and the terrain suitable, I see no fundamental reason you couldn't delay from successive positions. Barring extraordinarily favorable circumstances, it's not presently doable. Why?

Locating the gun and targeting it for destruction happen far faster than the gun can be taken out of action and moved elsewhere. Shooting, then taking the gun out of action and moving to a new position might work if you had really hot (minimum Veteran), in command (+2 preferable), highly motivated gun crews and relatively few targets at 800+ meter range, preferably close to a TRP. As I see it, the drill would be to fire a couple of shots, put down smoke, pack up the guns and hightail it back to the next planned battle position. Even better would be a leapfrog in which the forward guns would be overwatched by those further to the rear.

If a static defense is being fought, then it is indeed, absent orders to the contrary, live or die at the gun line. Apropos of the Russians, I'd like to note that they still sell/make towed ATGs, such as the 100mm T-12, including the powerful "mythical" one Suvorov wrote about and for which he was roundly criticized. I give you Sprut (Octopus) A and B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprut_anti-tank_gun

If you go to the site called Army Guide and type "Sprut-B" you'll get quite an education on the nastier version, which has auxiliary propulsion, allowing some gun displacement w/o a prime mover. The weapon is not in prototype. It was offered for sale in 2004 at an arms exhibition.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Even more difficult in CM because Player As God problem makes countering such actions much easier than in real life.

The-edge-of-the-world effect also makes it difficult to pull off in CM.

The trick of having tanks pull back through a friendly gun line to ambush a pursuing enemy takes a LOT of space to pull off. In CM terms that'd mean either having a ridiculously large maps (which has it's own problems in terms of time to create, playability, performance, and verisimilitude) or having the action start scrunched up at one end of the map and progression down the length of the map ... and the player who's being set up for the gunline ambush would have to be a bit of a 'djit not to realise something was up with a map of that length.

[Dadekster]

Ok, so I read in here that changes are being looked at and maybe made. Put the sticks down and let the poor horse die already.

[costard]

If we're going to have the momentum thing count, we need to have runaway guns rolling to the bottom of slopes, into creeks, upside down in ditches, etc. Good immersion value added, fantastic for those of us that thrive on frustration.

Battlefront has severely and deliberately limited the influence of the cock-up, in my opinion.

[HistoryLover]

I believe, if setup times of guns would be reduced, using guns in a more flexible way, as seen in the videos, could very well become possible.

The argument, that in reality on the battlefield setup times would be worse than those from reenactors does not convince me. I believe quite the contrary being true, since reenactors are not drilled as unit for weeks until they can fullfill everything blindly.

Additionally I'd argue that reenactors are fatter overall and therefore not as quick, too...

IMO trained crews should be distincly faster than reenactors.

And why should the setup time on the battlefield take longer than during a drill?

[Battlefront.com]

If we're going to have the momentum thing count, we need to have runaway guns rolling to the bottom of slopes, into creeks, upside down in ditches, etc. Good immersion value added, fantastic for those of us that thrive on frustration.

And thanks for fleshing out the reasons why we don't do this sort of thing I don't think there'd be more than 2 or 3 dozen people playing the game after one battle! The claim of wanting a realistic game is greatly overstated, me thinks!

The argument, that in reality on the battlefield setup times would be worse than those from reenactors does not convince me. I believe quite the contrary being true, since reenactors are not drilled as unit for weeks until they can fullfill everything blindly.

Additionally I'd argue that reenactors are fatter overall and therefore not as quick, too...

Yes, but even a fat man that is expected to do one thing and do it only for 30 seconds generally can. But ask him to move the same gun up a 20m slope and you'd quickly find out there's a difference

IMO trained crews should be distincly faster than reenactors.

Overall, yes. But there's a difference between all the things a real crew is trained to do vs. a reenactor group. Take any 5-6 men with a dedication to do something very specific with precision in ideal circumstances and it won't take them very long to do that one thing. The point of diminishing return on a specific and limited action is quite quickly reached. In fact, a real crew might take longer to do something so specific because they DON'T do that one action for weeks. They do dozens of different things in that period of time. Many of them have actually little to do with moving the gun, but rather how to maintain it, how to create positions, how to schlep ammo, etc.

And why should the setup time on the battlefield take longer than during a drill?

Because drills are, by definition, artificial conditions. That's the general distinction between "drills" and "exercises". One is a carefully controlled environment to develop rote skills, the other is tossing curveballs at the drilled skills. Real life takes the curveballs and occasionally hits one out of the park and says "catch it".

Case in point, how well do you think these guys could do their thing in uneven and wet terrain? How quickly with someone firing at them?

And I am being totally serious.

Steve

[JonS]

If we're going to have the momentum thing count, we need to have runaway guns rolling to the bottom of slopes, into creeks, upside down in ditches, etc. Good immersion value added, fantastic for those of us that thrive on frustration.

It's a dark night, a heavy dew; the order rings from the Tannoy Speaker. 'Fire.' Daddy Wilson echoes 'Fire!' A colossal roar, gunners lean away to avoid the blast, some with hands over ears, the earth shakes, the momentum of the crew carried them automatically to put another shell in, to discover the great gun [a 7.2-in howitzer] was missing. They stood, nit like, posed for action. 'The bloody thing's gone.'

It had indeed. Bouncing backwards, over a cliff and crashing 50 feet below, just missing the tent of a sleeping Gunner Secombe of 321 Bty, 132 Field Regt. Lake Nazarene, the Sergeant, carrying an oil lamp was given to going among 25 pounder gunners 'and he sayeth "Blessed are they that have seen 7.2?" "What colour was it?" And he hitteth them.'

Spike Milligan, from 'Rommel?' 'Gunner Who?': A Confrontation in the Desert.

[WynnterGreen]

People have been using ATGs in the game for years now. If they were truly, and utterly, useless do you think it would have taken this many years to get to improvements? Absolutely not. I guarantee it.

It's purely conjecture of course, but I actually suspect that peoples general opinion of ATGs as game assets has become so low that they're largely just ignored. Unless, as you mentioned, they're preloaded into a scenario.

Which is a shame, because they do have a role and should be able to function effectively within the limits of that role.

On the odd occasion ATGs do get used, I think most people have pretty low expectations of how they'll perform, so aren't surprised when they fail.

Many people, including me, have agreed with you that there's a need for improvement. So why go and spoil it by overstating the shortcomings of the current state of the game?

I believe I only ever made the statement that ATGs aren't a viable option in the form we currently find them, largely due to a set of compounding issues that [yes, severely] effect their performance and survivability.

I stand by that, because I think it's A: correct, B: the general consensus.

The tactical implications of being able to move a deployed AT Gun into and out of covered positions are really quite significant in my opinion.

The issue is a pet peeve, and I think someone had to push the barrow to hopefully instigate a change for the better in this area.

However let me make it clear, the 'current state of the game' is fantastic.

Combat Mission is brilliant and you have a great deal to be proud of.

I'll also say; I'm really thankful that you jump in and hammer out the issues, even if it's to disagree, because at least 'we as a community' are aware that you're taking notice.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Vanir Ausf B,

In CMBN terms, were the ATGs (note plural) handled well (bang off some shots, pull gun out of battery, close trails, hitch up and go)and the terrain suitable, I see no fundamental reason you couldn't delay from successive positions. Barring extraordinarily favorable circumstances, it's not presently doable. Why?

Because that's the way it worked in reality?

FM18-21, page 32:

Usually alternate positions should not be occupied under fire or when enemy fire is imminent

...

It is clear that when enemy forces were near, such movements were expected to be done under cover of darkness or smoke.

...

FM18-21 page 70:

Also, when one of his attacks fails, he is likely to make another attack over the same ground, profiting by the knowledge gained during the first attack. Therefore, whenever possible, a gun crew that has disclosed its primary position should move to an alternate position at the first opportunity. Often the movement cannot be made until dark because the towed gun is very vulnerable during movement. Such movements can be executed during daytime lulls only when the enemy is unable to bring direct or observed indirect fire upon the position.

Movements to alternate and supplementary positions and withdrawals are facilitated by the use of smoke. Smoke laid on the enemy is more effective than a screen placed in front of your own guns. Therefore, when smoke shells are available, the enemy positions should be screened.

Locating the gun and targeting it for destruction happen far faster than the gun can be taken out of action and moved elsewhere.

I don't see a problem with that. Shoot 'n' Scoot is a tank tactic, not a towed AT gun tactic. AT guns relied on cover, concealment, fire discipline and mass of fire to survive. Not so much on mobility.

"It soon became apparent that a single antitank gun, or a cluster of them operating independently, was quickly discovered and knocked out. For this reason a new method was developed, which the German panzer troops called the Pakfront. Groups of guns up to a total of ten were put under the command of one man, who was responsible for concentrating their fire on a single target. Groups of antitank guns were thus welded into one unit, the groups were organized in depth and strewn all over the defended area. The idea was to draw the attacking armor into a web of enfilade fire. Fire discipline was of the first importance, and to open fire too early was the gravest mistake that could be made."

http://www.isegoria.net/2011/07/armored-tactics-during-citadel/

[A Canadian Cat]

Case in point, how well do you think these guys could do their thing in uneven and wet terrain? How quickly with someone firing at them?

And I am being totally serious.

LOL fun video. I would say: for wet / uneven terrain 3-4 times longer or perhaps worse and while under fire: totally not going to happen - keep on driving.

One thing I noticed was that one CF member who was not directly part of the team slipped in to stick his boot behind the wheel at one point and at the end to hold onto the front bumper to prevent the jeep from rolling away. Clearly they had practiced this demo on a nice level floor and had not added wheel blocks to the drill.

[A Canadian Cat]

I doubt you could find many descriptions of tactical battles where ATGs were broken down from prepared positions and moved to brand new positions, under the eyes of the enemy, within a CM battle's timeframe. So if you're having difficulty with this, it's more-or-less realistic.

Could very well be. I have only ever tried this once - 2 hour battle on a 2km by 2km map. I suspect it might never come up again. Frankly I'll take whatever tweaking you are comfortable with and move on.

[futon river crossing]

Steve, your explanation of how's things are hinges on the best use of ATGs, in CM, is in prepared positions, you go on to say that re-enactors swivelling a gun is an unrealistic example, because in real life, for instance, the ground would be uneven - there would be logs/boulders in the way to inhibit the rotation of the gun. Well, in a prepared position (your preferred location for a gun in CM) surely there we be no such obstacles, because the position has, well, been prepared........

I'm glad you're looking at this, I'm not expecting miracles - but some change is needed.

[HistoryLover]

Case in point, how well do you think these guys could do their thing in uneven and wet terrain? How quickly with someone firing at them?

And I am being totally serious.

Well, if you're totally serious I'd say that this example shows a fake car. A motor not loosing liquid when the cooler is being removed?

With naked hands touching the cooler?

Loosening and tightening wheel bolts with the tire in the air?

Well, to me it seems, these guys can do this, because they are training too less with their gun!

Additionally a Jeep is a bad comparison: it is not constructed to be dismantled in open or rough ground. But guns are constructed to be deployed that way.

If you are afraid that setup times under certain conditions would become too short, wouldn't it be possible to make setup times dependent on terrain factors? The increased setup time of HMGs in buildings IMO is a fantastic improvement, it forces the player to weigh the cons against the pros.

[dan/california]

Spike Milligan, from 'Rommel?' 'Gunner Who?': A Confrontation in the Desert.

You just made me spew coffee everywhere!

[dan/california]

On a very slightly more serious note, allow me to describe the concept of the 45 minute screw. Follow along after you remove your mind from the gutter.

This is when your wrench has a bad angle, the bolt in question has been messed with before, and you round the corners right off. Thus a tiny element of a larger job that was supposed to take 30 seconds takes AT LEAST forty five minutes of #^$&$** around with files, locking pliers, and (god forbid) the tap and die set. This sort of thing does not get less likely because you haven't slept in three days and are at great and immediate risk of being shelled.

Every single element of something like dragging a gun out of a ditch with a truck, and trying to insert in its alternative ditch involves the opportunity for a 45 minute screw type experience.

[JonS]

You just made me spew coffee everywhere!

Mission accomplished

Oh, and I love the 45 minute screw. I've seen that happen, and experienced it first hand, many many times.

[c3k]

On a very slightly more serious note, allow me to describe the concept of the 45 minute screw. Follow along after you remove your mind from the gutter.

This is when your wrench has a bad angle, the bolt in question has been messed with before, and you round the corners right off. Thus a tiny element of a larger job that was supposed to take 30 seconds takes AT LEAST forty five minutes of #^$&$** around with files, locking pliers, and (god forbid) the tap and die set. This sort of thing does not get less likely because you haven't slept in three days and are at great and immediate risk of being shelled.

Every single element of something like dragging a gun out of a ditch with a truck, and trying to insert in its alternative ditch involves the opportunity for a 45 minute screw type experience.

In combat conditions, after finally getting that screw off, it's guaranteed that you'll drop it into the mud, never to be found. And that screw is VITAL to the function of the device and there are no spares. And it's night. And raining. Guaranteed.

[cool breeze]

I believe I only ever made the statement that ATGs aren't a viable option in the form we currently find them, largely due to a set of compounding issues that [yes, severely] effect their performance and survivability.

I stand by that, because I think it's A: correct, B: the general consensus."

WynnterGreen

Sorry but pet peeve I know you were just stating your beliefs and thoughts, but I think its best to leave "the general consensus" out of this. People poting and not posting in this thread doesnt really give much to go by as far as the player base. I felt like you were kinda saying I and my friends who play agree that atgs are not viable, as part of this nonposting general consenses of which you write.

I dont take them in QBs often but when I do I get more than my points worth on average. Maybe Im just so crafty it doednt matter that they arent viable

[Battlefront.com]

It's purely conjecture of course, but I actually suspect that peoples general opinion of ATGs as game assets has become so low that they're largely just ignored.

I think I know our customer base... they don't ignore things they feel are important. Quite the opposite! In fact they sometimes don't ignore things which are utterly unimportant

Unless, as you mentioned, they're preloaded into a scenario.

[my quote about not being suitable for QBs was here]

Which is a shame, because they do have a role and should be able to function effectively within the limits of that role.

But that's the core of my point. In real life they aren't suitable for those roles, so why should they function well in CM? I'd say that the fact that they aren't very useful in a QBs is historical proof as to why ATGs were largely gone from modern armies by the end of the 1950s, yet most other weapons systems used in WW2 were still in use.

On the odd occasion ATGs do get used, I think most people have pretty low expectations of how they'll perform, so aren't surprised when they fail.

And that is an entirely historically correct perspective to have. JasonC cited one source a few pages back that roughly 1 in 10 ATGs shot up a tank. I'm not sure if that's accurate or not, but I certainly have read similar things over the years that indicate the number of tanks taken out by ATGs was very low proportional to the number deployed. Similar to the calculations of AAA gun efficiency, where several HUNDRED rounds were expended for a single plane being downed.

I believe I only ever made the statement that ATGs aren't a viable option in the form we currently find them, largely due to a set of compounding issues that [yes, severely] effect their performance and survivability.

I stand by that, because I think it's A: correct, B: the general consensus.

Your opinion, but I'm reading the same stuff you're reading in this thread and I don't think you can draw that conclusion. The general consensus is about the technical issues being relevant. We're all in agreement on that. I do not see any consensus that ATGs are currently useless or that they should be useful for broader circumstances.

This is similar to the old debates about MG behavior (first in CMBO and then in CMSF). True, there were behavioral issues which made MGs less flexible/effective than their historical counterparts. But by no definition were they useless. They just weren't as useful. There is a major difference. And when the MG behavior was addressed the game didn't dramatically change. What did change was a subset of tactical situations which definitely benefited from the new behavior.

The tactical implications of being able to move a deployed AT Gun into and out of covered positions are really quite significant in my opinion.

In some situations, perhaps. But the movement was supposed to be done ahead of actual engagement. Common sense and the tactical manual make that pretty clear. Outposts were supposed to offer sufficient warning to make this possible.

The issue is a pet peeve, and I think someone had to push the barrow to hopefully instigate a change for the better in this area.

Yup, and obviously I don't have a problem with that since a) I'm here discussing it and I'm agreeing that there should be some changes. The only quibble I have with your presentation is that I don't see the changes having a big impact on the game. I'm saying that with all the experience I have both in studying the historical details, knowing how the game works at a deep level, and how our customers use it. I could be wrong, but I think it's prudent to set expectations lower than I think you're looking for.

However let me make it clear, the 'current state of the game' is fantastic.

Combat Mission is brilliant and you have a great deal to be proud of.

I'll also say; I'm really thankful that you jump in and hammer out the issues, even if it's to disagree, because at least 'we as a community' are aware that you're taking notice.

Thanks and thanks

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, your explanation of how's things are hinges on the best use of ATGs, in CM, is in prepared positions, you go on to say that re-enactors swivelling a gun is an unrealistic example, because in real life, for instance, the ground would be uneven - there would be logs/boulders in the way to inhibit the rotation of the gun. Well, in a prepared position (your preferred location for a gun in CM) surely there we be no such obstacles, because the position has, well, been prepared........

Mother nature doesn't like to be screwed with by a bunch of city boys with spades Seriously, next time you're out and about in natural terrain, look at the ground and up to shoulder height. Notice how many things would take a bulldozer and a dumptruck full of soil to overcome. If you've tried rolling a big, heavy, ungainly thing over even minor stuff you'd get my drift a bit better.

Plus, there's a big difference between pivoting in place (prepared position) and dropping a gun off in the middle of anywhere and expecting to not have problems. The former is best simulated with guns in place at the beginning of the game AND us speeding up rotation speed. The latter should still be rather difficult to do.

Well, if you're totally serious I'd say that this example shows a fake car.

You missed the point. I'm not trying to relate this to setting up a gun. I'm trying to get you to understand how carefully controlled, highly drilled actions do NOT automatically relate to the real world. Take those guys and have one wrench break or a bolt head strip and what would happen? Major delay. Have it be on muddy ground and what would happen? Significantly slower. Have it happen after 3 days of little to no sleep and 1000 calories too little nutrition and what would happen? Significantly slower.

Etc., etc. etc. Dan/california just chimed in with a similar example.

So when you look at anything done in ideal conditions, immediately think that it's never going to be that quick in real life. If anything, CM is OVERLY generous in terms of reliably doing things too quickly. That is across the board with everything. And that's because nobody would play the game if we treated that stuff realistically.

If you are afraid that setup times under certain conditions would become too short, wouldn't it be possible to make setup times dependent on terrain factors? The increased setup time of HMGs in buildings IMO is a fantastic improvement, it forces the player to weigh the cons against the pros.

The first thing that must be done is not start out with an unrealistically short setup time. Especially since we have no capacity to insert realistic maximum times (i.e. NEVER being able to setup a specific gun sometimes because of any number of problems). As for making setup times terrain dependent, I don't know if that is possible to do or not. Buildings are a special case anyway, so anything that happens with them is already separately coded for.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

In combat conditions, after finally getting that screw off, it's guaranteed that you'll drop it into the mud, never to be found. And that screw is VITAL to the function of the device and there are no spares. And it's night. And raining. Guaranteed.

That's true even for non-combat conditions The number of times I've lost a piece to a vehicle down into the depths of the engine compartment, in tall grass, behind something I didn't know had a crack leading to it, etc. is uncountable. Add cold temps and trying to do things 10 minutes before I need it done certainly doesn't help!

Sorry but pet peeve I know you were just stating your beliefs and thoughts, but I think its best to leave "the general consensus" out of this. People poting and not posting in this thread doesnt really give much to go by as far as the player base. I felt like you were kinda saying I and my friends who play agree that atgs are not viable, as part of this nonposting general consenses of which you write.

Thanks for helping to back up what I was saying. We can agree on the problem without agreeing on the extent of the problem. It's not good to forget that, because such is the case here. And it's why I've spent considerable time trying to sort out exactly what sorts of improvements can be expected from those which aren't realistically possible because they'd be historically inaccurate.

I dont take them in QBs often but when I do I get more than my points worth on average. Maybe Im just so crafty it doednt matter that they arent viable

Exactly

Steve

[dan/california]

The bigger maps with V3 will help with all this , as well. Some of the bigger guns just aren't supposed to to ever get in grenade range of the bad guys. A scenario or two would be sufficient to demonstrate why you don't charge a properly layer out PAK front with expending a few thousand Katushyas first. Then we can all whine about frontal armor modeling some more, not that that will happen on this board.

[Rastamon]

Here's an AAR from officers of the 823rd TD Battalion recorded a few weeks after the Dec 19th German attack on Stoumont Belgium. It supports the lack of flexibility comments from others. There were a total of eight 3" guns, a 90mm, and four 57mm ATGs defending the town. They knocked out 1 Panther.

"About 0500 Hours German armor, led by a Mark V tank and infantry launched a determined attack on Stoumont. The early morning darkness was intensified by a heavy fog which made it impossible to see through the telescopic sights in the towed 3” guns. Although a request was made of the infantry for mortar flares to assist observation at sighting targets, this request was denied. With foot troops the lead tank moved along the main highway leading to Stoumont until it reached the first mine barrier at which time the tank personnel with the aid of flashlights removed first mines.

Private Sanchez threw a hand grenade at these Germans and their return fire from automatic weapons drove Pvt Brinkoetter from the .30 cal. machine gun with which he was about to open fire, wounding him slightly. The tank then moved through the mines flanking N°1 gun on its right and as the gun could not fire on the tank or move to positions from which it could fire, the crew was forced to withdraw. The tank continued its advance, turning off the road to the North, and then driving West parallel to the main highway until N°2 gun was flanked and its crew forced to retire.

At this time N°3 gun adjusted its position so that it could cover the main road junction and N°5 moved to the alternate position where it covered the North bank of the highway and road junction. The Mark V returned to the highway and moved slowly West until it reached the road junction, where it was fired upon N°3 gun. No damage to the tank was done as all shots ricocheted off the front of the glacier plate. The tank then opened up with machine gun and 75mm HE knocking out the 3” gun. At about 0730 hours with light conditions improving the tank edged forward and came within range of N°5 gun and a 90mm AAA gun on the right flank. Both opened fire at the same time and the tank burned.

By this time enemy armor had left the main highway and was attempting to flank the town from the South and North. Enemy infantry small arms fire upon N°4 and crew forced the crew to withdraw. N°6 gun became engaged in a fire fight and after holding infantry off for some time with small arms fire the German tank suddenly appeared around the South West corner of the cemetery and knocked out the 3” gun with HE. This tank then continued West between gun N° 6 & 7 automatically flanking and coming into the rear of 7 & 8 guns which were unable to swing around for their protection.

During this action fire from tanks and large caliber assault guns had been moderate. After all guns had been neutralized and friendly infantry was withdrawing from the town at about 0930 hours, instructions were given to withdrew (at Remouchamps) in all vehicles that could be removed."