AT Guns: Problems and How to Solve Them?

[Battlefront.com]

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.

Yup. As Rastamon's great except shows, when the enemy gets that close either the guns are neutralized or the crews abandon them. The opportunity to remove them is already gone at that point.

It is always a good idea to remind people that military forces, in general, were designed to avoid "knife fights". In most situations both sides did try to avoid them. Er, except for Soviet doctrine (but it's so different let's not bring that in here!). Normandy was notable in particular because knife fighting was more the rule than the exception because the terrain favored it. It's also why it was so bloody.

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.

Good one. And there can also be quotes found where ATGs turned the course of a CM sized battle. But not through moving all over the place, but rather by scoring some good hits and making the enemy unsure it should risk more losses. I'm sure the guns were repositioned after the enemy called off their attack.

This is brining up memories of a CMBO battle I played where I lost pretty much all of my Shermans to a couple of well placed Pak40s. They never moved throughout the course of the battle, yet by the time I overran them with infantry they'd done a number on me, that's for sure. Which is why I'd not call them valueless

Steve

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B and Steve,

Point taken regarding what the FM says. Was working from memory. That said, I would invite a look at a couple of ATG employment issues. Rommel's ATGs really shone, in part, because for quite some time, other than a few CS tanks per squadron, the British had no HE capability. On top of that, generally speaking, the German guns could kill the British outside of the effective range of the 2-pdr. I don't have a similar handle on the Russian Front, where sometimes a few 45mm ATGs in 1941 quickly killed three Panzers at a highway tunnel and forced a major attack to back off, yet, by comparison, thousands and thousands of ATGs, backed with all manner of support, really didn't destroy all that much German armor, relative to the above case, at Kursk.

What I do know is that Russian open fire ranges were short: 300 meters for the 45mm (Litvin in Clark), as a case in point. Elsewhere, Monyushko (I Remember), who fought at Sandomierz as a ZIS-3 gunner, cites 800 meters for that weapon. In any event, the objective was to lie doggo until the armor was so close it was hard to miss and penetration was better than at longer range, then smother the armor with surprise fire, preferably delivered with said armor in a fire sack. Gabel, in his useful monograph Seek, Strike and Destroy, p. 63

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf

reports that, in the Ardennes Campaign, the towed TDs got clobbered, principally because the mud prevented the evacuation of the guns when redeployment was normally needed. He also reports the crews found the towed 3-Inch Gun very heavy, awkward to handle (weighed ~5000 pounds) and vulnerable to enemy fire. Let's compare the 3-Inch with the Pak 40, its functional equivalent.

Pak 40 3140 pounds, 4.1' tall, 6.6' wide

3-Inch Gun 4872 pounds, 5.3' tall, 7.2' wide

It would therefore appear the U.S. scored an own goal here. By creating a huge, heavy gun with a slightly angled (vertically and horizontally) slab of armor plate for a shield, the U.S. Army doomed itself to combat failure.

By contrast, the Pak 40 weighed only 64% of the honking U.S. gun, was demonstrably movable by the crew and had vastly better ballistic protection via more pronounced compound angling (angled out and back) and spaced armor. The Pak 40 could exploit relatively small depressions to hide, while the 3-Inch required a lot more and still was highly vulnerable. The height and width differentials worked against the 3-Inch in that they made it significantly easier to hit, since shots that would miss the Pak 40 altogether via overshoot might well hit the U.S. gun. Similarly, more precise lateral aim was required to hit the Pak 40. Also, near misses from the front found no armored apron between the wheels on the US. gun, where the Pak 40 crew did have one. If dug in, not such a big deal, but important when fighting in more open areas.

Right up to the end of the war, the Pak 40 remained an effective weapon, using PzGr 39, against all but the heaviest enemy armor, while engaging frontally. Naturally, flanks and rear were preferred.

Now, what Rastamon posted flatly contradicts the received wisdom on U.S. ATG displacement in combat. Number 3 Gun adjusts (pivots or what?) its position, while Number 5 Gun moves to an alternate position! The latter presumably refers to packing up the gun, hitching it to its halftrack and going elsewhere. Whereupon, the gun's backed in, the tow is dropped, the weapon's set up, etc.

On balance, I think the proposed changes, especially if weight based, will illustrate the quite real advantages of the Pak 40 over the 3-Inch. Why the U.S. came up with such a beast of ironmongery I know not, but Gabel makes it abundantly clear the price for this screwup was paid in blood and destroyed or otherwise lost guns and prime movers.

For the U.S., the 3-Inch probably makes little sense in a QB, unless the map supports such a choice. In defense, particularly if BFC further improves camo modeling for static ATGs and similar, then it may make sense, especially if TRPs and confining terrain are available. While not technically a Tank Destroyer, were I the U.S. player and desirous of having ATGs, I'd buy the 57mm (in quantity) and take comfort it can kill anything smaller than a Panther frontally and everything from the side and rear, using scarce British supplied HVAP (maybe APDS later on?) as needed vs the heavy Panzers.

As I opined in the GL AAR where Bil Hardenberger fought GreenAsJade, I believe he would've gotten a lot more from his ATGs had he bouhgt 57s, but I believe the intent was to showcase new toys, and the 3-Inch is a very large toy indeed!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

What I do know is that Russian open fire ranges were short: 300 meters for the 45mm (Litvin in Clark), as a case in point. Elsewhere, Monyushko (I Remember), who fought at Sandomierz as a ZIS-3 gunner, cites 800 meters for that weapon. In any event, the objective was to lie doggo until the armor was so close it was hard to miss and penetration was better than at longer range, then smother the armor with surprise fire, preferably delivered with said armor in a fire sack.

This is consistent with Soviet doctrine in general. It emphasizes the broader chances of success at the expense of individuals at the tactical level. Opening up at 300m, to me, indicates compensation for poor crew training/experience. This was similar to tank doctrine earlier in the war as well. Close with the enemy, get in a knife fight, hope to either kill or at least disrupt enemy. Heck, there's more than one account of Soviet tanks literally ramming German ones. Surviving such a fight was a happy bonus.

It would therefore appear the U.S. scored an own goal here. By creating a huge, heavy gun with a slightly angled (vertically and horizontally) slab of armor plate for a shield, the U.S. Army doomed itself to combat failure.

Yup, which is why much of that FM you cited is probably not relevant. I don't have an earlier one (say, 1942), but I'm going to guess the manual is nearly identical. Even though what worked for a 37mm ATG is not likely what would work for a 57mm or 76mm ATG. Just like what worked for a Pak40 would not work with a Pak43. At least not in the tactical details.

Now, what Rastamon posted flatly contradicts the received wisdom on U.S. ATG displacement in combat. Number 3 Gun adjusts (pivots or what?) its position, while Number 5 Gun moves to an alternate position! The latter presumably refers to packing up the gun, hitching it to its halftrack and going elsewhere. Whereupon, the gun's backed in, the tow is dropped, the weapon's set up, etc.

As pointed out, that only works when conditions allow for. When you've got alert enemy armor within close range, in bad visibility conditions, options for extraction and relocation are limited at best. A moving US vehicle would easily catch the eye of the panzers and boom... no more ride and the gun still in a compromised position. Worse, if the gun had NOT been previously detected, the attempt to limber it might well have changed that equation.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Under the right conditions (seldom), the 3-Inch gun could be most unpleasant. As seen in in draft Volume III Report for the SAIC Anti-Armor Defense Study, p. 19 et seq, dug-in guns with adequate infantry support ruined the Germans' day at Dom Butgenbach. 4 x 3-Inch killed three Panzer IVs and caused the two survivors to leave forthwith. Also of interest is that each 57mm had 5-7 rounds of APDS dating back to a British gift right before D-Day. Dom Butgenbach is but one of three (?) cases analyzed in depth by SAIC. It may well be the best performance for the Towed 3-Inch of the war.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a284379.pdf

Here are the links to the above study overview volumes, containing within them enough references to warm the cockles of a grog's heart.

http://www.tankdestroyer.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169:anti-armor-defense-study-by-saic-science-applications-international-corporation-3-9-1990&catid=40:tdarticles&Itemid=86

Karamales and coauthor Vannoy later wrote an excellent military history book called Against the Panzers.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Dadekster]

So with all this back and forth...does anyone actually know how long on average it took crews to deploy specific towed weapon systems? I mean there has to be some sort of baseline where nothing goes wrong and an average crew sets it up as quick as they can in a sterile environment. I would guess then take this time and then start adding the variables.

Posted in no meaningful order:

Baseline/weapon system

# of crew/or missing

Experience

Under Fire--> tie this into suppression value/stop action past %threshold?

Weather conditions

Type of ground

Condition of ground

Morale

Fatigue level

In command

Did anyone break something on the gun/luck

etc

etc

From this you would get your times for deployment/rotation/movement per weapon system? I mean where do the numbers we currently see come from and what is factored in anyways or is this top secret squirrel stuff or published somewhere? See this is the kind of stuff I come up with when there is nothing in the Bones thread

[Battlefront.com]

Unfortunately I don't think we have that sort of data available to us. No doubt there were time standards that had to be met while training, but that's the sort of stuff that tends to get lost. Certainly nearly none of that sort of information is available in field manuals.

It's down to best guess. What's in the game right now is best guess, but I do agree that the times seem to be more appropriate for limbering/unlimbering under non-stressful time constraints.

Steve

[WynnterGreen]

Here's a couple of quick examples of the sort of movement I believe ATGs need to be capable of.

Short distance movements while deployed.

In the Urban example, it currently takes a PAK38, eight and a half minutes to turn the corner and be prepared to fire.

Or a PAK36, six minutes, forty fives seconds for the same action.

In the second example, the gun has to move into the firing position, once there it has to spend two minutes twenty seconds deploying before it can take a shot.

To me it seams reasonable that the gun should be able to be pushed into position ready to fire.

I think ATGs need to be able to make the moves illustrated while deployed, so the gun can transition from a cover to a firing position in an effective way.

While they may not be the most versatile asset in the field, they were certainly capable of that kind of handling.

The same is true of the situation in reverse.

The gun should be able to be pulled off the crest into defilade without having to sit completely exposed for four and a half minutes while it packs up and then another minute for the gun to move one action square off the ridge.

Also, I'm pretty sure we need this.

[dan/california]

Please tell me there is video of it being fired, please, pretty please!

[Battlefront.com]

WynnterGreen,

Yup, you have reasonable expectations for what those two moves should have cost in terms of time. Which actually makes me think there is a bug somewhere. IIRC you are supposed to be able to move the ATG/IGs a short distance without having to redeploy, just like you can HMGs and certain modern crew served weapons. I'll check into that specifically, separate from the other issues.

Oh how I wish we had the time to put Easter Eggs in the game... 'cuz that one would be awesome!

Steve

[altipueri]

In that second example I don't think a crew would be able to push it up that slope. They might be able to pull it back.

[Dadekster]

I would love to be able to pull those examples off. Regarding that corner scenario, I am sure somewhere in the war the only thing some guys had was a rinky dink AT gun whose only hope of penetration was a rear shot in an urban environment. It might be a long shot to get it trundled across the street and around a corner to get that shot off but I'd still attempt to do that then have to get close and personal with it to throw some improvised explosive device in the tracks to immobilize it. You might be able to get one shot off before it rotates on you and starts up with the lead hose but at that point I'd leave that gun there and be around the corner to not watch the results. That's how I'd plan it...we know how plans work in CM though.

Right now that'd be definite suicide to include the guy who moved armor into urban setting unescorted.

[WynnterGreen]

In that second example I don't think a crew would be able to push it up that slope. They might be able to pull it back.

In part the issue with that scene is the fact that we don't have particularly fine control over final positioning due to the nature of Action Squares.

If I'd had better control of the deployment, it would have finished the move with the barrel just cresting the hill [Which I would consider quite achievable], rather than the whole gun perched on top as illustrated.

I didn't have that minutia of control, but it suffices for an example.

Oh how I wish we had the time to put Easter Eggs in the game... 'cuz that one would be awesome!

With the attendant children passing up ammunition in exchange for cigarettes.

[Battlefront.com]

It would be a bit of a struggle to push up that hill quickly, but presuming no major micro terrain hassles it would certainly be possible.

Steve

[altipueri]

If you google (now a verb) "pak 40 manhandled" you get some interesting photos, then one of a lawn-mower. Then some other stuff.

"7.5 cm PaK-40 Anti-Tank Gun

The Panzerabwehrkanone 40 (PaK 40) 7.5cm anti-tank gun was an anti-tank gun used by the Germans in World War II. It was built to combat the superior Russian tanks like the T-34 and the KV-1. The PaK-40 was brought into service in November of 1941 and remained the primary anti-tank gun in service with Germany and its allies until the end of the war. With a range of 1,000 to 1,500 yards, the PaK-40 could fire a 15-pound armor piercing round at 2,598 feet per second, making it an accurate and efficient tank killer. With the later advent of the 7-pound tungsten-cored round (AP40), the PaK-40 could punch through 115 mm of steel at 500 yards, allowing it to take on virtually every Allied tank except the most heavily armored, like the Soviet IS-2 and American Pershing. The crew of eight could pump out about 10 rounds per minute. One drawback of the PaK-40 was its great weight which made it difficult to manhandle and almost impossible to move without the aid of an artillery tractor."

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, honest Google searches can turn up some "interesting" things. In fact, I use porn/disturbing images as an indicator that is the end of possible useful material from that particular search criteria. If I find no porn/disturbing images on a full page of search results, I'm shocked

One drawback of the PaK-40 was its great weight which made it difficult to manhandle and almost impossible to move without the aid of an artillery tractor.

Of course a description like this tough to take at face value. Compared to the Pak36, which the crew could literally run with on flat ground, the Pak40 definitely is vastly more restricted in terms of non-motorized movement. Yet it's nothing compared to the Pak43. In the latter case, the gun definitely is effectively immobile without transport.

Steve

[Baneman]

.... IIRC you are supposed to be able to move the ATG/IGs a short distance without having to redeploy, just like you can HMGs and certain modern crew served weapons. I'll check into that specifically, separate from the other issues.

...

If this can be achieved, it alone would be worth the thread.

Being able to move it back without the rotation would be gravy ( which I mention because, as a wargamer, having been offered a hand, I'm going for the whole arm of course )

As always, you guys looking into something that has been brought up is much appreciated, so thanks.

[MikeyD]

I vaguely recall one German general had claimed the best all purpose anti-tank gun of the war had been the Pak36® 76mm! Its hard to imagine what criteria he was using for that assessment. It might've simply boiled down to the large wheels on leaf spring suspension and foam rubber filled tires.

[HistoryLover]

I vaguely recall one German general had claimed the best all purpose anti-tank gun of the war had been the Pak36® 76mm! Its hard to imagine what criteria he was using for that assessment. It might've simply boiled down to the large wheels on leaf spring suspension and foam rubber filled tires.

According to Lexikon der Wehrmacht this seems far fetched:

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/panzerabwehrkanonen.htm

------------------Pak 40---------Pak 36®

weight:..............1400 kg.............1700 kg

Panzergranate 39

v0:.....................770 m/s.............740 m/s

@1000 m @90°:....121 mm...............82 mm

Panzergranate 40

(Hartkern)

v0:.....................990 m/s..............990 m/s

@1000 m @90°.....133 mm..............112 mm

[WynnterGreen]

One drawback of the PaK-40 was its great weight which made it difficult to manhandle and almost impossible to move without the aid of an artillery tractor."

German troops moving a 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun across a muddy road in Northern France, Oct 1943

German paratroopers moving a 7.5 cm PaK 40 gun into position in muddy terrain, Italy, 23 Feb 1945

Finnish forces manhandle a 7.5 cm Pak 40 into position, somewhere on the Eastern Front.

Somewhat related, Marine Artillery on Okinawa.

[altipueri]

QED I would say.

[Battlefront.com]

Cool, I've never seen those purpose built hauling straps for the Pak40 before! I count about 17 men moving that. It's basically the platoon's entire strength to move one gun.

Yup, these are things CAN be moved... but it's like you CAN win the lottery too

Steve

[WynnterGreen]

Yeah, 'can' and 'want to' are different things.

I've seen video of a PAK43 being manhandled too, can't locate it at the moment, but here's a still. They were moving it reasonably well considering the number of crew, but it was only a few seconds of footage, and I suspect it wasn't going much further than a few meters further forward.

You can also see in this image of a seperate occasion, they've got plenty of manpower for the push.

[MikeyD]

About the German general's perplexing praise for the Pak36®, what's that old phrase? Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. If the general wasn't praising the gun for its weight and penetration ability (what we usually talk about re AT guns) it must've been something else. Perhaps it was resistance to rough use, or its flexibility in dual use as artillery. Its been stated that Germany's mania for 'optimal performance' in their guns' core mission came at the expense of overall flexibility.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, when I was saying a Pak43 wasn't really pushable, I meant by it's own crew. Stick a platoon of soldiers on it and that's another ball of wax Especially because the game has no ability to simulate that. Regardless, it's still going to be limited to relatively optimal surfaces/grades and minimal distances. The fact that a platoon is necessary to move a gun in a particular condition (be it a Pak40 or a Pak43) also indicates this is not an action that would be possible under combat stress. Simply rounding up all those men would be tough enough, but doing it without one mortar round taking them all out? Yeah, not a good bet for the gun crews!

I can confirm that you will soon have the ability to move an unlimbered gun faster than you can now and without the penalty hit for limbering/unlimbering. However, if you do limber the gun you can move it faster, though with the obvious cost of limber/unlimber. Which means if you are going to shove the gun a few meters you leave it unlimbered, if you're going to go a couple dozen you might be better off limbering first.

Steve

[HistoryLover]

I can confirm that you will soon have the ability to move an unlimbered gun faster than you can now and without the penalty hit for limbering/unlimbering.

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.