ATGs again...

[WynnterGreen]

8 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

What's actually ridiculous is expecting the perks of a tactic that isn't portrayed in CM, along with none of the downsides.

I'd love to know who it is that you believe that's advocating for the perks without any downsides?

 

The contention is that after a small but welcome revision by BF, ATGs still significantly under-perform in relation to their real world potential.

If in-game Sherman's were restricted to move at 30% of their real world potential there would be discussion about it. This is no different.

 

No one's asked for anything unrealistic, they've asked for more realism [which is Combat Missions mantra]. 

In my opinion that includes modelling fatigue differently, which I alluded to in my previous post.

 

They fixed the ridiculous Pack, Move, Un-Pack necessary to move an ATG a short distance, and thank goodness.

But it was only a partial fix for what should be a more useful and versatile battlefield asset.

 

Movement speeds need to be revised, I think that's quite clear.

I'd also suggest that crews receive heavy fatigue penalties for moving too often, or too far.

Fatigue should be amplified for moving through difficult terrain, and perhaps only smaller guns should be able to move on certain terrain types.

 

I think the suggestion that a larger portion of the ammo goes to 'bearer' detachments and that gun crews themselves carry a smaller round allocation to offset greater mobility is an excellent one.

That way if a player gets 'gamey' rolling their guns all over the place, they soon find that their heavily fatigued bearers can't keep up.

 

In game assets should be given as many real world tactical possibilities as possible, 'nerfing' the gun to simulate supply lag isn't a good solution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wicky]

"...I found that with a wind behind me the shield became a kite! Instead of being close to my body and perpendicular to the ground, the thing effortlessly rose to shoulder height and parallel to it! The tactical implications of this are obvious and only truly comprehensible via living archaeology."

and if the wind had been blowing the otherway the textbooks would need to be rewritten...

The videos are done on nice neatly mown parkland unimpaired and under no pressure apart from impressing an audience,  I'd like to see them do it on rougher ground with rotten fruit being thrown at them. Heck if I tried to turn an ATG 180 in my my back garden, first I'd need to mow the lawn, chop down a tree branch or two, move some odd & sods out the way, kick a fence down and pump the tires up...

[Anthony P.]

With all due respect, I think a fair few people are misinterpreting what I wrote. I never said neither "booo!" nor "yay!" to the proposal of making ATGs quicker to move. What I said is that if you want to change something, you should reference a source for why you think that would be realistic. And those particular sources that have been presented in the form of short films of reenactors playing war are quite frankly horrible sources. I'm criticizing the sources, not the proposal.

I really don't agree that any reenactor can be considered to be on par with even a Somali militiaman, but that's beside the point: What I've pointed out is that turning an ATG in place with the help of 4 men who carry none of the bulky equipment that would've been absolutely vital to using the Pak IRL, and then moving it a very short distance with 7 men, again lacking any of the equipment necessary for using the Pak says absolutely nothing about the realistic operation of an ATG.

I do know that "living archaeology" can be used to understand historical things (e.g. squashing the notion that the Romans couldn't have had effective shock cavalry due to lacking stirrups), but personally I don't think it necessary in this case. It's not been that long since the war, and we know from documentation that ATGs can be moved fast under some circumstances. What I'm saying is that ATGs should be able to move fast, but not as long as the crew is still carrying 20-30 shells.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Anthony P.

[John Kettler]

disagree as to the lack of value of re-enactors out, as you say, playing for half  a day in terms of evaluating tactics. For starters, long before those guys ever show up for the public demo, they've spent whole weekends out practicing the crew drills and firing procedures. And before that, they first have to learn to dress and behave as Landser. Consequently, for our purposes, I'd say their training level would at least be Green, if not higher. These guys know what they're doing, and it shows in their every actions. What they're doing is called "living archaeology" in academic circles. This simply means using actual equipment and weapons or as close to them as possible, in order to both recreate what it was like and to evaluate the correctness of  history studies based solely on ancient texts. 

For example, I was a star Latin student in high school and an afficionado of the Roman legions going back to elementary school. We read Caesar's Commentaries in Latin class, and I built a scale cross sections of Roman fort and a Roman siege shed. Doing those alone provided a great deal of insight into how things were and what went on. Reading about Roman siege weapons and building one from period instructions by Vitruvius will fundamentally alter your perspective on the topic! But the real revelations were to come. 

Somehow, I became aware decades later of these guys Legion Six Victrix, a hardcore re-enactment group which makes its own military sandals, sews its own tunics, and even makes its own shields. Some, who are blacksmiths, forge their own heavy spearheads and armor for the other guys, who then make the shafts for the heads and then send them back for riveting. These guys go out on route marches in full kit an, conduct drill and weapon exercises to Roman Army standards and using orders given in Latin. They eat Roman Army fare, carved with correct knives and served on appropriate mess tins. They are anal, and that's a great thing. Why? Because they offer unique insights into what was and was not possible in ancient times. They are a living laboratory through which all sorts of experiments can be conducted. It's one thing to read about being a legionary, but something altogether different than when you're in the characteristic articulated Roman armor typically seen in films, wearing the the heavy helmet, with sword in right hand and shield in the other charging up a hill. I say this because I did it at a huge all-period re-enactor event in California. As it happened, it was on a sea bluff, with a fair amount of wind. Running uphill in full war array was a lot to do for someone unpracticed and on the far end of the legionary service period, but what I learned about the shield in action was astounding. I found that with a wind behind me the shield became a kite! Instead of being close to my body and perpendicular to the ground, the thing effortlessly rose to shoulder height and parallel to it! The tactical implications of this are obvious and only truly comprehensible via living archaeology. Similarly, Caesar talks about when the Nervii suddenly attacked while the Romans were on the march, burdened with packs, shields encased and crests not affixed. It was also raining. If you want to know how long it takes to actually be able to fight while thus caught off guard, living archaeology provides the answer. Consequently, living archaeology has become a new tool for archaeologists to use in reconstructing daily life. Therefore, I feel perfectly comfortable in saying that what we see happening in the re-enactor demonstrations and the movie are significant in aiding understanding and directly relevant to our ATG/IG discussion of what's doable in the game vs what should be doable based on real world demonstrations.

Bulletpoint,

Your proposal would certainly be a big improvement, though I'd suggest that the associated Fatigue hit be tied to terrain and maybe weather. Clearly, the mobility and maneuverability of the actual guns discussed are much greater than even our earlier investigations revealed. The videos Lt Bull provided far surpassed anything I'd previously seen. Before that, my gold standard was the video of the vastly lighter and smaller leIG 18 being brought into action. To use an animal metaphor, if the leIG is a newborn calf, the Pak 40 is a mighty bull. Relative to the former, it truly is a beast, yet can clearly be manhandled by the crew quite easily--as long as not as it's not the dreaded Rasputitsa and in full retreat!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

[WynnterGreen]

2 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

What I said is that if you want to change something, you should reference a source for why you think that would be realistic. And those particular sources that have been presented in the form of short films of reenactors playing war are quite frankly horrible sources. I'm criticizing the sources, not the proposal.

There's scant evidence available, but what evidence there is supports that notion that CM currently under-models ATG performance.

There are 'period' videos of ATGs being manhandled in much the same way as shown in the re-enactment videos. Those videos are largely staged demonstrations, with the occasional bit of combat footage [usually pre-engagement] thrown in. 

I don't necessarily like it, but those videos and Towed Gun Doctrine make up the largest portion of evidence available on the matter.

So while it isn't wise or ideal to rely on them completely, they provide the best evidence we have for the moment.

Perhaps it is a 'frankly horrible source', it's still more evidence than the 0 sources provided to support either the contrary position or the current status quo in game mechanics. 

 

I think we're probably in furious agreement that aspects ATGs performance need addressing.

It's just the details, the "why's" and "at what costs" that are in contention.

 

[John Kettler]

Computer problems are such fun! Double post.

Wicky,

You appear to have found a lineal descendant of the memorable Sgt. Schultz from the old US TV series "Hogan's Heroes."

Anthony P.,

Have you ever spent any time with re-enactor or, better yet, known any? They are all but totally immersed in their re-enacting. They are forever researching, building, testing, improving (better fabrication techniques and such) and repairing things. If they're not doing those things, they're getting ready, at or coming back from and cleaning up following an event. A friend of mine was into ACW. He drove a car which was a rolling disgrace, but in the trunk he had enough gear to arm, equip and dress an entire squad. A good deal of what he had was the real, too. Talking a small fortune.  Another guy I knew got into being an arquebusier. He went out and bought steel hex rod, bored it out, fabricated the firelock, stock, etc. He made his own cartridge containers and made his own costume. He knew, I'm sure, since he had vastly more information at his disposal, far more about every aspect of being an arquebusier than the guys who did it back when.  On balance, I think it's a major mistake to dismiss the value the serious re-enactors provide in solving issues such as the feasibility of various evolutions and the handling of weapons. In no way do I subscribe to your statement saying they're worse trained than Somaii militiamen. For starters, the re-enactors haven't been chewing qat all day!

On a more serious note, re-enactors obsessively study the period literature, and for a Pak 40, that would certainly include the Merkblatter (link's to a book with a master list of all known Merkblatter held in archives and libraries worldwide. These people network globally on all sorts of specialist forums where no detail is too small, too trifling. They chase down the Merkblatter and drill instructions on the internet and at rare book dealers, gun shows and the like with fanatical intensity, for that is what they are. To get some idea of how rigorously they approach these matters, I invite you to go to www.germanmanuals.(usual)/manuals. There they have, in addition to a slew of English translations:

MG 42 Operator's Manual - WW2 German Issue

Merkblatt 41/18 - Anleitung für die handhabung und Bedienung des M.G. 42 als leichtes und schweres Maschinengewehr - Instruction for the Handling and Operation of the M.G. 42 as a light and heavy Machinegun.

MG 42 Operator's Manual - WW2 Military Issue

D166/1 - Maschinengewehr 42, The M.G. 42, Description, Operation, and Care.

MG 42 Indirect Aiming Manual - WW2 German Issue

Das indirekte Richten der schweren Maschinengewehre - Indirect Aiming of the heavy Machinegun.

MG 42 Picture Manual for the Glass Slide Instruction Series - WW2 Military Issue

Bildheft 142a, Bildheft 142b, Bildheft 142c, Das M.G. 42 - Picture Book 142a, 142b, and 142c, The M.G. 42. 

MG 34/42 Pre-firing Inspection Manual - WW2 Military Issue

Merkblatt 25b/34 - Richtlinien für Überprüfung von Waffe und Ausbildungsstand am M.G. 34 und 42 - Guidelines for Inspection of the Weapon and Effectiveness of Teaching about the M.G. 34 and 42.

The Merkblatt for the Pak 40 is Merkblatt 47b/36 Vorlaufige Bedienungs-und Schiessanleitung fur die 7,5 cm Pak 40 (Sfl.) (5.15.43) 

Re-enactors have a level of subject mastery which is downright scary. For example, the Legion Six guys could not only tell you whether you had the correct exact model of the cassis (helmet) for the time period and location, but also whether you'd screwed up and bought the wrong pattern patera (mess tin). Unless I badly miss my guess, the Pak 40 re-enactors above could not only school the Somali militiamen but take them to college! German DF cannon sights are stupid simple to operate, and you can learn how by playing Panzer Elite (not that dreadful arcade abortion) in mere minutes. 

WynnterGreen,

I wouldn't rush to place major limits on at least some of the larger ATGs. Here's why. The Pak 40 weighs 1425 kg. The ZIS-3 (which we know from a veteran's account and an accompanying watercolor )was the standard ATG for Pakfronts in 1944 when the 17-pounder trials were done) is considerably lighter at 1116 kg and has a 500 meter push distance over rough terrain using only the crew. This was explicitly stated in the report of Russian trials of the 17-pounder ATG, in which the Russian ordnance specialists pointedly remarked that the 17-pounder could be moved only 100 meters and over smooth ground. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited May 22, 2016 by John Kettler

[Sailor Malan2]

I think one of the issues here is that no one has said what effect the lack of ATG mobility in game is having. I think the case has been made that fresh troops on reasonable ground can move a Pak 40 (was it?) much faster than in game. But so wha?. What is it that players want to do with these ATGs moving at triple speed in a scenario (i.e. in actual combat)? Does the lack of speed prevent them performing it? I think it might be back to the HT crew exposure debate - people complain about their excessive crew/pax casualties. I have never noticed since never use HT within about 400m of a known enemy, and often don't unbutton even then. I rarely move ATGs in scenarios.

Historic footage is almost aways staged. I am a huge fan of the role of living history in grounding some text based flights of fancy (fantasy?) by academics, however would never take it as a lieral example of what is achieved in combat conditions. The reenactors would have to be at the end of a 3 day camp, with hight stress or little sleep, and be subject to random painful electric shocks if exposed to the 'enemy' before i would take their results literally. They show what is physically possible not what would actually happen..All infantry adopt firing positions and none cower in ditches for the entire battle according to reenactors. As I said, inflict great  pain on anyone 'head up' on a random basis, then see what happens and I will apply more credibility to that result.

[WynnterGreen]

11 hours ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

  What is it that players want to do with these ATGs moving at triple speed in a scenario (i.e. in actual combat)? Does the lack of speed prevent them performing it?

I'm not sure if you read the first thread on the issue, where much of this was talked about at length.

 

Legitimate examples of tactics commonly used in actual combat that aren't really viable with the current mechanics are guns in defilade being quickly rolled into firing positions.

As per towed gun doctrine, guns being rolled from primary to prepared secondary firing positions. For lighter guns, shoot and scoot.

Not being such easy meat for direct fire mortars.......etc 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by WynnterGreen

[Wicky]

I'll run some tests later - but with multiman crewed ATG getting whittled down say then it'll need new programming to account what 1 or 2 or 3 man crews are capable of moving / twizzling on a sixpence, and if it's uphill or downhill / into the wind or down wind / shielded or unshielded. Probably something that can be looked at afresh and new ideas implemented in CMX3.

[Lt Bull]

An interesting range of responses from those who seem to have read and watched what I have presented (thanks WynnterGreen for returning to this discussion) to those who either haven't or just simply need further explanation.

Interesting to keep in mind that none of us even seem to know what data/sources of information BFC referenced on which to base/justify the movement speeds of ATGs (and their deployment/pack-up times) in CM.  I have asked for this already but will ask again.

On 19/05/2016 at 8:43 PM, Baneman said:

A deployed Pak40 can move roughly 1 AS per turn.

Yes which is about 8m/minute, or 8x slower than what you see the re-enactors move the "undeployed" Pak40 int he video.  I can't imagine them moving the Pak40 8x slower than what they currently are even if they tried on that surface. (NOTE: 1 AS = 8m).

On 20/05/2016 at 8:51 AM, Vanir Ausf B said:

The movement rates for ATGs are very abstracted. They move at exactly the same speed on every terrain and ground condition, uphill or downhill. And the crews never tire. They can push that gun all day I'm not saying they could not be improved, just something to keep in mind.

Apart from uphill/downhill modifiers on unit movement, BFC have already modelled in to the game terrain effects on movement speed for both vehicles and infantry and fatigue effects on infantry moving at FAST/QUICK/HUNT/SLOW speeds so it just seems odd and exceptional that this same kind of modelling simply hasn't been transferred to ATGs.

I can't see why BFC would treat the movement modelling of ATGS any differently to the movement modelling of infantry already in the game.  Anyone know why they don't model terrain effects/fatigue on ATG movement? A general lack of ATG love or abundance of ATG apathy?  As I have said, it's not like they haven't done this already for other units in the game.

13 hours ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

I think one of the issues here is that no one has said what effect the lack of ATG mobility in game is having.

A bizarre comment given the lengths to which people have gone out of their way to explain. Yes they have many times, you probably have not paid attention. Did you read what FOCOL was/is on page 1 and how you can't really execute it in the game?  The "mobility" issues with ATGs in the game are not just an issue related to their speed of movement, but to the fact that ATGs can only move in one direction, forward. As far as executing a "text-book" FOCOL based ATG ambush in CM, ATGs would have to possess the ability to move in reverse ie. a REVERSE moment command option, which they don't currently have.  In fact, moving an ATG in the reverse direction (pulling it liek they do in the video) might actually be preferred/easier to do than moving it in the forward direction (pushing it).

Have been quiet a few people trying to discredit the quality and type of information that can be gleaned by watching "living archaeology" type videos that have been posted here and elsewhere using rather weak reasoning (neatly mown grass!) Kind of disconcerting that some then go to suggest they would place more value in considering an imaginary situation based in their own back-yard with themselves trying to turn some imaginary ATG 180deg, LOL!  Please offer more credible alternate data/sources on which to base any understanding on which ATG mobility should be modelled.

The closest most of has have probably come to knowing what it is like to manhandle an ATG would come from any experience you might have had from manhandling trailers (and whatever they have been loaded with: furniture, rubbish, motorbikes, boats etc ). When moving/wheeling various trailers of different size and weight in the past, I know it had struck me that it was not too unlike what it would be like manhandling an ATG (same basic shape, form, mass and wheels). In fact, in leui of an actual ATG, I think much could be gleamed from actually using a trailer, loading it up with various masses equivalent to actual ATG masses and getting a team of guys to push/pull it up/down/over various terrain and recording the results.  What could be established would be the relative differences between different loading/crew number/terrain scenarios. Even better, contact those re-enactors in the video and ask them to do the tests using he actual ATG (PS: I have decided to do this).  Would be good fun doing these tests unless you are more the type who prefers to sit behind a desk and trash the validity of their efforts.

On 20/05/2016 at 10:37 PM, Bulletpoint said:

I think it would be nice to have small guns be more mobile, not only AT guns but also the little infantry guns for example.

Right now, it just seems the small guns are generally considered inferior to the bigger ones, because we get all the drawbacks and none of the advantages of the smaller guns. (mobility, concealment, ability to use cover like buildings and foxholes where bigger guns won't fit)

Spot on.

On 21/05/2016 at 9:56 AM, WynnterGreen said:

I'd love to know who it is that you believe that's advocating for the perks without any downsides?

The contention is that after a small but welcome revision by BF, ATGs still significantly under-perform in relation to their real world potential.

If in-game Sherman's were restricted to move at 30% of their real world potential there would be discussion about it. This is no different.

No one's asked for anything unrealistic, they've asked for more realism [which is Combat Missions mantra]. 

In my opinion that includes modelling fatigue differently, which I alluded to in my previous post.

They fixed the ridiculous Pack, Move, Un-Pack necessary to move an ATG a short distance, and thank goodness.

But it was only a partial fix for what should be a more useful and versatile battlefield asset.

Movement speeds need to be revised, I think that's quite clear.

I'd also suggest that crews receive heavy fatigue penalties for moving too often, or too far.

Fatigue should be amplified for moving through difficult terrain, and perhaps only smaller guns should be able to move on certain terrain types.

I think the suggestion that a larger portion of the ammo goes to 'bearer' detachments and that gun crews themselves carry a smaller round allocation to offset greater mobility is an excellent one.

That way if a player gets 'gamey' rolling their guns all over the place, they soon find that their heavily fatigued bearers can't keep up.

In game assets should be given as many real world tactical possibilities as possible, 'nerfing' the gun to simulate supply lag isn't a good solution.

+1.  A great summary of the current situation.

19 hours ago, John Kettler said:

The Merkblatt for the Pak 40 is Merkblatt 47b/36 Vorlaufige Bedienungs-und Schiessanleitung fur die 7,5 cm Pak 40 (Sfl.) (5.15.43) 

....

I wouldn't rush to place major limits on at least some of the larger ATGs. Here's why. The Pak 40 weighs 1425 kg. The ZIS-3 (which we know from a veteran's account and an accompanying watercolor )was the standard ATG for Pakfronts in 1944 when the 17-pounder trials were done) is considerably lighter at 1116 kg and has a 500 meter push distance over rough terrain using only the crew. This was explicitly stated in the report of Russian trials of the 17-pounder ATG, in which the Russian ordnance specialists pointedly remarked that the 17-pounder could be moved only 100 meters and over smooth ground. 

Thanks John for your contributions here.  Would be interesting to peruse the Merkblatt for the Pak40 (link doesn't work). 

The report on the 17pdr (listed as weighing 2860kg) is very interesting. Please also note that the tests seem to also have been conducted in snow conditions based on the photos.  The reports says "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." The lack of convenient rails (basically handles for crew to hold/lift/pull/push the gun) definitely is a huge issue.  You can see in the Pak40 re-enactor videos the crew grabbing on to dedicated handles on the ATG trails. Lack of convenient rails might indicate the weapon was never really designed/intended to be manhandled significant distances (though 100m in the snow still seems more than what you would expect any ATG in CM to be moved) which is fair enough for something weighing around 3000kg on 2 wheels.

Also please note the report mentions that the time for the 17pdr to go "from march to firing position and back" was only 40-60 sec.  Now I am not 100% what that means but it does sound like something related to deployment and packing up.  Keep these numbers in perspective when we now consider that BFC have assigned Deployment and Pack-up times for the 17pdr to be 3.8min and 8min respectively.  FWIW the 6pdr has been given 1.8min and 3.7min deployment and packup times.

Again, where is BFC getting their modelling information from?

Why is ATG mobility in CM so undermodelled based on basically all the evidence that has been presented?

[Anthony P.]

14 hours ago, Lt Bull said:

An interesting range of responses from those who seem... to those who... simply need further explanation.

So could you provide other sources? As I've pointed out, the only sources you've presented so far consists of 4 men moving only the Pak in place, and then 7 men moving only the Pak a few dozen meters. This obviously doesn't justify changing the current CM specs of the ATG, where most notably the shells are carried. In CM there'd also have been 20-30 shells carried in the first film, and 40-50 in the second (counting the extra 2 men as the separate ammo carrying detail).

[John Kettler]

Anthony P.,

Though the 251, truck or horse & wagon might not be able to reach the gun's new position quickly or at all, it can certainly, using the ammo bearers, load and bring up the rest of the ammo and other items close to there. And if transport isn't available, there are typically soldiers about, for ATGs and IGs don't generally operate alone, who can simply be ordered to go pick up and bring forward ammo for the gun, however far, within the crew's Fatigue limits, it got displaced. A single squad could move all the ammo in one lift. Yawn. I refuse to believe any infantryman who wasn't half dead couldn't manage to carry 13 kg a maximum of 500 meters. 

I guarantee you the Russian tests with the ZIS-3 didn't rate the weapon's military suitability  based on being able to have, say, two ammo bearers schlep 20 shells the 500 meters the gun was moved, while having the latter time dictate the gun's rapidity of movement  across the ground.  The point of the test was to determine how far the ZIS-3 could be tactically moved absent a truck or wagon, since Russia had very few halftracks.  And any Russian soldier could easily bring up 2 x 6.2 kg AP rounds in very little time, one on each shoulder. Pak 40 ammo is only slightly heavier (6.6 kg), but the basic idea is the same.

 The first priority is to relocate the gun, with at least one round up the spout and preferably a few more to hand. With even one round available, the gun is now a credible threat, especially at typical Russian point blank open fire range. The rest is simply a matter of time, regardless of whether or not transport's available. The fundamental point here is that you don't have to move the entire ammo load in order to bring the gun into action. Based on the above, we're saying that the gun's speed shouldn't be tied to the schlepping of the entire ammo pile, a notion which frankly seems ridiculous on the face of it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[WynnterGreen]

 

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

.....ammo... ammo.... ammo

You're fixated on an issue that's been given a reasonable address, ie, a larger portion of the ammo being offloaded to the 'bearer' detachment with whatever movement and fatigue restrictions seem appropriate.

You even agreed that it was a good option.

Why are you still using it as an argument?

 

As far as I can see, the problem with the guns and their lack of mobility remains.

 

[Anthony P.]

Kettler: The idea of leaving shells behind, or having infantrymen who happen to be around carry the shells would be a sound idea. But since there is currently absolutely zero provision for either dumping ammunition, or redistributing it, I don't see how it's applicable, neither is it something that is dealt with in either of the sources Bull's provided, which is why I asked him if he had any others at hand.

Green: I'm sorry if I sound repetitive, but since I was not answered and written off as "simply needing further explanation" (IMHO somewhat condescending), I felt like raising it again. As you say, I definitely agree that ATGs ought to be allowed faster movement speeds if some realistic provisions could be made for it, but none of the sources Bull keeps mentioning (without addressing criticism of them) actually seem to pertain to the ideas mentioned. Most prominently, the second film shows 7 men with zero equipment moving the gun a short distance. That would be the entire crew, plus the ammo bearers moving the gun and leaving all equipment, ammunition, and even personal firearms behind.

In summary, OP only addresses some, mostly people who agree, without mentioning any of the ideas/somewhat contrary aspects brought up. Thus I felt I should ask him for another source than the first ones, since he doesn't appear willing to debate the relevance of them.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Anthony P.

[WynnterGreen]

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

The first priority is to relocate the gun, with at least one round up the spout and preferably a few more to hand. With even one round available, the gun is now a credible threat

This This, This, This and This

 

A well organized prepared position is the best option. EVERYONE AGREES!!!!!

Whenever they had the time and opportunity to prepare one, that's what they did.

BF has given a nod to that with their concealment bonus for unmoved ATGs.

 

However, it wasn't a luxury they always had in the field, ad hoc tactics were often necessary.

Some of us would love to have ATGs in Combat Mission perform to their capabilities and be the threat they should be rather than an ignored option because they have to be pushed through molasses in game.

Edited May 23, 2016 by WynnterGreen

[Lt Bull]

12 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

So could you provide other sources? As I've pointed out, the only sources you've presented so far consists of 4 men moving only the Pak in place, and then 7 men moving only the Pak a few dozen meters. This obviously doesn't justify changing the current CM specs of the ATG, where most notably the shells are carried. In CM there'd also have been 20-30 shells carried in the first film, and 40-50 in the second (counting the extra 2 men as the separate ammo carrying detail).

Oh I'm looking for other sources don't worry about that, as I hope you are and anyone else who cares about the realistic modelling of ATGs in this game.

The only sources I have presented are a shed load more than any other sources anyone else has provided, which is zero. There is nothing obvious about the way BFC have modelled ATG mobility, rather it is actually more exceptional and what should be questioned.

Of course I am considering ammo in all this, but really how much of an issue would it have been?  Has anyone cared to do the math? No, well  let me do that as well.

So I open CM, create a QB and drop in a bunch of different Pak40s from the different forces they appear in and check their ammo loadouts.

12 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

In CM there'd also have been 20-30 shells carried in the first film, and 40-50 in the second (counting the extra 2 men as the separate ammo carrying detail).

Really? I guess I was not really surprised to find that this statement was either exaggerated and/or misleading.  Either way, it is definitely incorrect which is a shame because others contributing information/sources to this thread have spent quite some time making sure what they bring to the table here it is at least accurate, honest and objective.

Interestingly, Pak40s in CM from German Army/SS seem to have an ammo layout of 5 HE and 13 AP rounds (total 18) and their 2-man ammo bearer crews carrying 4 HE and 10 AP rounds (total 14).  Curiously Luftwaffe Pak40 crews can be seen to have ammo loadouts of 3 HE and 10 AP rounds (total 13) with their 2-man ammo bearer crews 2 HE and 8 AP (total 10).

So in summary we have a CM Pak40 ATG 5-man crew and ammo 2-man team carrying no more than 32 rounds of ammo between them, which is between 20% and 36% less than what some posters would otherwise have you believe.  Looking at an CM Pak40 ATG crew alone, they carry no more than 18 rounds, which is between 11% and 66% less than what some posters would otherwise have you believe. (BTW, those % are significantly greater if you consider the 13 round Luftwaffe Pak40s).

But lets not end the analysis there and consider this comment.

On 20/05/2016 at 2:41 AM, Pak40 said:

Instead of animating the soldiers packing/unpacking and carrying the rounds of ammo, it all abstracted. And that's what Lt Bull doesn't seem to realize.

Actually I realise a lot more beyond what is being suggested here.

Lets look at how much weight we are really are talking about when we consider these Pak40 rounds.

Now CM lists Pak40 ammo as being either just AP or HE. Sources I can quote tell me that a typical Pak40 HE round weighed approx 9.15kg while the AP round was either around 9.5kg (PzrGr 40) or 12kg (PzGr 39).  I believe the PzGr 39 is the "standard" AP round modelled in CM for the Pak40 so we can go with that (unless someone can correct me).

The Pak40 rounds appear to be packed 3 per wooden ammo box.  Here is a good representation of what they looked like (actually a scale model):

Dimensionally I estimate the box to have been around 1000x380x120mm, weighing about 5-8kg (anyone know what type of wood was typically used for German ammo boxes? Pine, oak, beech, cedar?).  A fully loaded ammo box of PzGr 39 would consequently weigh around 41-44 kg.  If all the Pak40 ammo was carried in these boxes, then a Pak40 crew at worst would have five or six of these boxes to carry the 13 or 18 rounds depicted in CM.

The full ammo loadout of a Pak40 in CM ends up translating in to around 250kg of rounds and boxes.  It is ridiculous to think/expect (let alone model in a game) that the 5-man crew would simultaneously move the ATG and carry the 250kg with them under any situation, like some people seem to want to visualise. Moving the gun would have been the primary task, probably undertaken by all the crew, while any relocation of remaining ammo would have been a secondary task undertaken by perhaps one or two of the crew. The implications of "leaving ammo behind while you move the ATG" of course depends on how far the ATG is being moved and the circumstances.  In a practical ambush type application (similar to what is described in that WW2 US AT gun doctrine Field Book already referenced) that requires moving the ATG in and out of defilade/firing positions, the need to move any ammunition was probably unnecessary/minor given the ATG would have only be moving perhaps 20m at most from firing position to defilade and back.

I think we need to keep in mind that those advocating a review of how ATG mobility in CM is modelled are not really interested or referring to situations where ATGs would be wheeled hundreds of metres all over the map. We are mainly talking about "local" or tactical mobility. Having them move with the same level (or base) of mobility we have seen in the videos within even 50m would be sufficient to meet the majority of situations most of us are considering.

Interestingly the ammo boxes I have seen for Pak40 ammo seem to have wooden handles on each end of the box which would allow two crewman to carry one box by grabbing a handle with one hand at each end, each man lifting and carrying equivalent of around 22 kg load, which really is relatively light.  A single crewman moving one 44kg box of ammo would probably grab one handle and drag the box along the ground behind them.  They could even take the lid off and grab the sidewall of the box and drag it that way if need be.  It would be rather awkward (though not impossible) for one crewman to lift and carry an ammo box of that size and weight standing upright in two arms.

For those of you unfamiliar with lifting/moving weights at the gym or doing any kind of manual labour moving relatively heavy things around, all these numbers and weights unfortunately probably mean nothing to you.

The way CM abstractly models the mobility/movement speed of an ATG is to consider the gun, the crew and the ammo/ammo boxes as one "average" mass.  This abstraction however does not translate well in to the practical mobility the weapon would otherwise have. Significantly slowing gown the speed at which the gun can be manhandled (moved/rotated) by magnitudes 4x less than what we have seen in these videos does nothing to realistically and faithfully model the tactical mobility (and hence effectiveness) of ATGs in the game.

On 20/05/2016 at 2:39 PM, Michael Emrys said:

Now you are finding out why there was so much incentive to place ATGs in mobile platforms.

Not really. ATGs have their place.  They are way cheaper and easier to design, fabricate, crew and maintain than a mobile ATG platform.  Mobile ATGs have many disadvantages that ATGs don't have.  Everything has it's place, hence why they exist in the first place.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Lt Bull

[Lt Bull]

Although I have been focussing on the actual physical movement and rotation speeds of a Pak40, I have not really questioned the deployment and packup times of it and other ATGs, apart from the pointing out the Russian testing that seems to have determined that a 17pdr can go "from march to firing position and back" in 40-60 sec compared to 3.8min deployment and 8min packup times you see in CM.

I really am finding it hard visualising what must be going on within the time spans allocated in CM  for th deploying and packing up of the various  ATGs.  A CM Pak40 has a deployment time of 2.2min and a packup time of 4.4min.  That really is a quite a lot of time for a 5 crew to do whatever BFC think they need to do before getting off their first shot, more so when you consider packing up.  Ammo wise, it's more likely there is less ammo to deal with when packup than when you deployed, so why should it take twice as long?

Lets look at an actual Pak40 being fired and see if we we can learn anything from it:

Not much here but great to watch! A few degrees rotation in the wheels back then forward again after firing.

Now another:

Pity you can't see the full length of the trails/shovel ends but based on the seemingly sandy/rocky surface. It doesn't look like there is any evidence of "digging"/displaced earth around the ends of the trails to anchor the ATG to the ground.  Putting effort to specifically ground the trails is probably more of an issue if the gun is on an inclined slope, like on a reverse slope.  The gun does not seem to recoils on it's wheels as much as it did compared to the first gun.

PS: Found some more.  This time you can clearly see the ends of the trails and shovels.  Looks like hardly any effort was made to anchor the ends to the ground, definitely not minutes of effort!

The way those shovel ends are designed is that they are angled in to the ground.  They kind of self embed themselves when the gun fires anyway.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Lt Bull

[Anthony P.]

You're the person who started this thread and asked for a fundamental change of how some things work in CM, don't expect everyone else to do that for you. The burden of evidence is obviously on the person who demands change. The same person should also be prepared to politely debate the issue.

Regarding the number of round, I put those rough numbers down there as there are more ATGs in CM than just the Pak40. Some have more shells, some have less. Since I assume you want all ATGs changed, not just the Pak40, I thought it'd make sense to provide a rough average.

As for basically everything past the picture of a model: All of this is pure speculation and assumptions on your part about tactics and procedures (dragging ammunition boxes along the ground? Sounds like a quick way to get a vicious beating from the first NCO who sees you in the process of damaging shells  ). Quite frankly I find it somewhat incredible to propose that moving the ammunition to within reach of the ATG would be a secondary task in actual combat. If you want 1-2 men to transport all the ammunition of the ATGs, you'd really better provide some documentation for this.

Regarding the video evidence: What incentive do these people have to operate the Pak according to proper procedures? Less than the reenactors I'd say, these people are just interested in firing the thing. Nothing wrong with that, I'd gladly have been there, but this does mean that it says very little about the RL employment of the Pak, or any other ATG for that matter. In the second and third films we do see that the legs have been braced in the ground, which appears to work quite well (the Pak doesn't appear to move much at all, which would be vital to keeping camouflage somewhat in place when firing), but the process of digging the legs in isn't shown, so I'm not sure what makes you decide how long that took.

 

Perhaps you could look for sources in other forms than YouTube films of ATGs being fired in a recreational purpose today?

Edited May 24, 2016 by Anthony P.

[Baneman]

On ‎22‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 1:51 AM, Anthony P. said:

... we know from documentation that ATGs can be moved fast under some circumstances. What I'm saying is that ATGs should be able to move fast, but not as long as the crew is still carrying 20-30 shells.

Thing is, anything like this is going to be a 2 step process - (1) move the gun (2) move the ammo. Why would you try to do both simultaneously especially when (2) will clearly slow you down ?

Logically you would move the gun ( possibly with one shell loaded ) and then send (most of) the crew back for the other gubbins - including their own kit ( why would you carry that while pushing either ? )

In any case, in all the clips of actual WWII footage of ATG's being manhandled I've seen, the guys pushing are carrying nothing.

1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:

... In the second and third films we do see that the legs have been braced in the ground, which appears to work quite well (the Pak doesn't appear to move much at all, which would be vital to keeping camouflage somewhat in place when firing), but the process of digging the legs in isn't shown, so I'm not sure what makes you decide how long that took.

They don't look dug-in at all - they look like they're in a few centimetres at most.

[Anthony P.]

Only referring to the ends of the legs. Can those be dug in even more?

[Pak40]

On 5/21/2016 at 8:41 PM, WynnterGreen said:

Static bracing and digging in were desirable, but not necessary.

Here's some perfectly acceptable and historicity accurate 'bracing'.

Yes but not practical and certainly not worth BF's time to program all the intricacies of manhandling AT guns and firing them. For example, in the photo you supplied, there is a crew of 4 and at least two of them are holding down the gun. What happens when the crew is reduced to 3 or even 2? BF would have to program logic and code into all these "what if" scenarios.

I remember reading about a 101st Airborne soldier in the defense of Veghel. His crew was reduced (I think) and they had just wheeled their 57mm into position on the highway when a German tank appeared at point blank range through the smoke. The gun wasn't braced at all but he had to fire, it was do or die. The gun flew back 50 feet or so and broke the guy's arm or leg.

So while these circumstances certainly existed I'm not so sure it's worth BF's time to program all these things that are possible but very rare.

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

(dragging ammunition boxes along the ground? Sounds like a quick way to get a vicious beating from the first NCO who sees you in the process of damaging shells  )

I'm genuinely wondering if WW2 was really like that, especially for the Germans, or if your line of thought is influenced by modern American warfare with hot showers and cheeseburgers and guided missiles and video games and lots of time to polish your boots and do things by the book?

[Anthony P.]

I mean, the Wehrmacht wasn't quite as draconian as "do zis correctly, oder Ich will shoot you!", but destroy kit because you were lazy and screwed about with it? Yeah, from all memoirs of German soldiers I've read, you'd probably have been beaten to a pulp in short order and placed on some crappy details for a long time forward. There's a difference between doing things in a way that's practical instead of by the book, and just being lazy and careless. Imagine un-boxing dozens of deformed AT shells when dozens of T-34s appear out of the snow on a cold morning around the Stalingrad pocket.

[WynnterGreen]

2 hours ago, Pak40 said:

The gun flew back 50 feet or so and broke the guy's arm or leg.

So while these circumstances certainly existed I'm not so sure it's worth BF's time to program all these things that are possible but very rare.

I'm assuming the 50 feet [15m] is hyperbole?

I find it extremely difficult to believe a 57mm ATG could be moved that far unless it was off a ledge or down a steep slope.

Recoil springs and rails take up a huge portion of the energy.

Is it possible the person was hit by the barrel blow back and not carriage movement?

A quote would be awesome, just to satiate curiosity.

 

2 hours ago, Pak40 said:

Yes but not practical and certainly not worth BF's time to program all the intricacies of manhandling AT guns and firing them. For example, in the photo you supplied, there is a crew of 4 and at least two of them are holding down the gun. What happens when the crew is reduced to 3 or even 2? BF would have to program logic and code into all these "what if" scenarios.

 I completely agree that it's impossible for BF to code for all permutations and that we have to accept abstraction.

That's true of many and varied aspects of CM.

 

I don't think that changes the fact that ATGs need attention.

 

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Only referring to the ends of the legs. Can those be dug in even more?

If you look at many WWII era guns trails, they were designed with a plough wedge at the end. 

That meant that on most surfaces the action of firing the gun would direct force through the trail into the ground, further entrenching the trail.

A self entrenching mechanism, if you will.

However, that shouldn't be taken as meaning the trails wouldn't be manually entrenched in prepared sites. 

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by WynnterGreen

[Baneman]

Just now, Anthony P. said:

... Imagine un-boxing dozens of deformed AT shells when dozens of T-34s appear out of the snow on a cold morning around the Stalingrad pocket.

I seriously doubt that dragging a wooden box across the ground ( only one end actually in contact with the ground ) will damage or deform the shells inside which even in the model picture have a wooden former to hold them motionless inside.

Besides, didn't tank crews sometimes have shells loose on the floor ( at least, earlier in the war ) ?