Guns vs Armour

[The_Enigma]

Would one consider this cheating:

We have 2 guns (these a 3rd but cannot be seen here) on the crest looking down on massed armour. Yet these 3 guns have been knocked out after massed HE fire.

[Hensworth]

This picture illustrates the problem, being not so much that the gun is hard to kill (because incoming direct fire either flies over its head or hits the ground well in front of the position) but that it is free to fire over the slight rise to its front. The targeting line clearly curves. So while the gun enjoys the protection offered by its location, it does not suffer the consequence of not being able to fire on targets within a considerable stretch of dead ground that should normally lie in front of the gun.

Only positioning that exploits this can be termed gamey.

[The_Enigma]

From that picture, based off actually bmp representation that the gun barrel is pointing into the hill.

(Now i do understand that the game allows it to fire anyway)

I think we are all getting confused on the subject then lol.

As in my pic, i always have the gun so they are pointing over the crest if i position them on a hill.

My original comment came from this, as in shells will mostly fly over it or slap into the hill side.

Enough them as in my pic above can take out said gun.

Whereas yourself and Jason are referring to a scenario more in line with your picture.

[birdstrike]

I put up a test scenario:

4 German Tigers attacking a US 76mm ATG behind a crest, ca. 1200m away (way beyond MG range for so so chance to pin the gun). I used gentle map contours (1.5m), set up a crest at height 15, steep front (down to level 7 - where the tanks are), rear slope descending slightly (1 height-level per square down to lvl 9).

I put the ATG ca. 17m behind the crest (barrel was slightly below the crest line) - anything farther back, i.e. deeper behind the crest would have resulted in loss of LOS to the tanks.

It took the tanks 20 seconds to take out the ATG. Not a single hit scored on the tanks.

2nd try: 40 seconds, 1 dead Tiger.

3rd try 25 seconds, 1 dead Tiger.

I don't get it. Why should this be a cheat?

Not once my gun lasted even a single turn.

[birdstrike]

2 more trials in above setting:

gun lasted 50 and almost 60 seconds, no tanks KOed.

Changed map contours to normal (2.5m), but had to move the gun up to 7m behind the crest, as to not lose LOS to the tanks.

1st test: 33seconds, no tank KOed

2nd test: gun got pinned after 27 secs by a close deontation, KOed after 33 seconds. 1 Tank was hit, but not KOed.

3rd test: gun lasted ca. 40 seconds, 1 Tiger KOed.

[Broken]

The reverse-crest tactic for ATs has been around since the dawn of CM. It's been used in every tournament I've been in with nary a peep from any one. So Jason is speaking strictly on his own here, and few CMers I've played with would favor banning this tactic. Jason is looking at this from the realism POV. From the POV of CM as a game, the "reverse crest" tactic has marginal impact.

Speaking of guns in general, the best guns for AT work are the little German 1919 or 1937 75mm field guns, especially from Oct '44 when they come with a few "C" rounds able to kill most Allied tanks. They are good cheap HE chuckers as well, and most importantly, they are highly mobile (as guns go, anyway).

Do NOT entrench these mobile guns in foxholes. That way, they can shoot-and-scoot before the inevitable mortar rounds start landing. If they are emplaced at edge of LOS (such as reverse-crest, etc.) with a move order 50 seconds into the "ambush" turn, they can get off 4-5 rounds before scooting from view.

The mobility of these field guns can also be exploited to reposition them if the attacker advances on an unexpected route. This simply cannot be done with the immobile PAK 75s (and other heavy AT) without a transport vehicle.

If you do desire transport for the small field guns, even a transport-class 4 vehicle is adequate, such as a Kubelwagon. The big PAKs, on the otherhand, require transport-class 7.

[ December 15, 2006, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Broken ]

[jBrereton]

Let's have a more realistic test - 4 tigers on 3 guns. Guns behind a crest. Regulars on both sides. Non-open terrain.

[Soddball]

I think Jason overstates his point. There can, under certain circumstances, be a 'cheat'.

Is it significant? Not IMO. I doubt that I've played as many games as Jason, but in my experience the 'reverse slope bug' isn't a big deal.

I've played few games where I haven't turned up without mortars. A dozen rounds on target will solve the problem. Failing that, area fire with a MG will suppress the gun.

ATGs are spotted too easily in the game anyway. This was never a deal-breaker for me.

[dieseltaylor]

I think Jason overstates his point. There can, under certain circumstances, be a 'cheat'.

Overstates! Thats putting it very mildly. Only in CMBB wwas it impossible and then it was patched. And I have played more games than JC.

[JasonC]

How it works

The best case is a target on lower ground than the gun, the gun on a falling regular slope. A high velocity enemy shooter helps. Best range is 500-1000. At closer range you want to be far enough down the slope that the target is hull down - same if you have side aspect. At longer ranges you can safely wait for hull up to increase chances of a track hit.

In these tests I ran 10 lanes with ranges from 300m to 1000m, pairs at each range. The guns were given 100 AP, the Panthers regular ammo minus smoke. In 40 engagements, the Panthers killed 9 of the guns - 4 of them hull up instances at close range and 3 of them the longest 900-1000m ranges. Besides the winners, an average of 2 Panthers survived the testing period in each run, plus many gun damaged and reversed into their smoke.

These are targets that cannot be penetrated. Actually, there was a single weak point penetration in one test. All the damage is done by non penetrating GD and track hits. The Panthers run out of HE without KOing more than about 1 in 5 of the guns.

Positioning a gun in that manner - the bent stick targeting line - is gamey in the extreme and players should not do it, nor should they put up with others doing it.

[The_Enigma]

Fair enough

What is your position on the picture at the top of page 3?

[birdstrike]

I see, it really seems to be an issue with CMBB only. The above example in CMAK would not be too difficult to take out. Sorry for inciting a riot over this.

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by jBrereton:

Let's have a more realistic test - 4 tigers on 3 guns. Guns behind a crest. Regulars on both sides. Non-open terrain.

You shouldn't engage an ATG with odds like this. I would advise at least a 3-1 ratio. Otherwise all the tanks get killed, crest or no crest.

[JasonC]

The top of page 3 image looks like a much more natural slope. It probably does cause some of the same unrealistic difficulties for the tanks, but it is not the deliberate and brazen exploitation of it that I am worried about and warning against.

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jBrereton:

Let's have a more realistic test - 4 tigers on 3 guns. Guns behind a crest. Regulars on both sides. Non-open terrain.

You shouldn't engage an ATG with odds like this. I would advise at least a 3-1 ratio. Otherwise all the tanks get killed, crest or no crest. </font>

[JasonC]

I've run the tests, no need.

A typical real game use, rather than showing exploiting the tactic allows guns that can't penetrate to rack up enough hits to get damage etc or run the opponents out of ammo, one on one, is -

there is a berm, modest enough, the kind you'll find on any gentle slope map or more.

The Germans buy 2 PAK 40s and 2 trenches, and assign a platoon HQ (or section) to command them. A good one for it has + morale and + combat bonuses.

The trenches are placed about 5m behind the crest of the berm, about 60m apart, HQ centered behind them. PAK are in the trenches far enough down to have no LOS inside 400m, then a window of hull down, then a window of hull up - to distant open parts of the map.

Other side put "n" T-34s. vary n and ask what happens.

Answers - when n = 3, the T-34s all die, no questions asked. Without the berm there is always a chance they miss their first couple shots or kill only one T-34, and then an early T-34 shot KOs one of them, leaving a 2 on 1 that the tanks can then win. With the berm, this does not happen - the T-34s all die and PAK survive.

When n = 6, if there were no berm the PAK would be lucky to take out 1-3 tanks and they would go down in a hail of fire. About half the time that still happens, due to a early pinned result on one PAK typically. But the other half of the time (with a berm) the PAK run the table, killing all 6 T-34s. Occasionally they lose one PAK in the process, but often it is clean.

When n = 10, without a berm the PAK are lucky to kill 1-2 T-34s and they always lose. With a berm, they still typically lose, killing 2-4 T-34s.

Notice, the n=3 case is already 3:2 point odds, all attackers get. The n=6 case is 3 to 1 point odds - and with the berm the expected losses run 3-4 T-34s per PAK KOed. The n=10 case is 5 to 1 point odds, and the expected losses to the side with the 5 to 1 odds are still higher, often by a factor of 2, than the points they take out.

n = 3 the PAK should be favored to win, that is correct. It is a good combined arms match up for the PAK. But the rest is about the same as having 2 PAK for each you pay for.

[Silvio Manuel]

Isn't this "cheat" really just a more extreme version of "hull down" but for the gun? How is the tank going to hit a target that is peeking maybe 1-2 feet up over a ridge? If anything is a bug, it's that the gun can see "over" the ridge when it shouldn't. It would be better if units other than mortars and offmap arty could cause treebursts... but that wouldn't help if the gun is on the reverse slope in a trench in open ground.

[coe]

Well naturally this leads to the real life question.

Since guns were very effective tank killers and seem to if confronted with a tank get the better of it:

why not have a whole bunch of AT guns with highly mobile transport all over the place - you'd still get a good exchange!

[JasonC]

coe - (1) they did (2) there is a response, armor artillery cooperation in real time. In reality it is hard for the PAK to win the duel when it is raining metal and there is dust everywhere etc.

[coe]

So in real life in a chance encounter the PAK would usually have favorable exchange or was it a question of who spotted who first and got the shot off.

It seems to me that to kill a pak you have to land an HE in a relatively tight area (assume it's 75mm HE) - perhaps in an area tightter than the area that would be taken up by a tank (I assume that parts of the PAK crew are in foxholes near by so the only way to kill the PAK early on is to physically harm the gun.

I'm thinking however for a tank you don't have to land an AP round really close to the gun in the tank to kill the effectiveness of the thank, - a hit farther away from the gun will do (like hitting the engine compartment - causes secondary effects, fire, explosion etc.

[JonS]

was it a question of who spotted who first and got the shot off?

This one. First shot counts, especially if you can stay concealed while shooting. That is far easier to do with a gun that an tank.

However, once both parties have been spotted, it is hard to suppress a tank, but easy to suppress a gun. And a tank can maneauvre while under fire, but a gun cannot.

[John Kettler]

Which is why the Russian called towed antitank guns "Farewell the Motherland!" since those guns fought and lived or died where they stood, with the tractors or horses well back to ensure "combat steadiness." The mission was simple. Stop the Panzers--at all costs!

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

The U.S. Tank Destroyer force had positively dreadful results with their 3 inch anti-tank guns and it all had to do with total lack of maneuver under fire. While their SP battalions (M10s, Hellcats, M36s) racked up tank kills by the hundreds, towed AT battalions could only count kills in the dozens - if that. There's a reason why towed AT guns for attackers in CM are practically useless!

Funny thing was, when the shoe was on the other foot the Army claimed their most feared opponent was a well concealed AT gun. Maybe that's the difference between offensive and defensive warfighting.

[coe]

Speaking of tank destroyers (M36, M10, etc.) I wonder why the Americans didn't try turretless tank destroyers and why the germans didn't try turreted tank destroyers (ok besides the cost of a turret but we're talking the theory of lightly armored vehicles with turrets but with enough punch to kill a tank) .

[coe]

the other thing was, how did German towed PAK compare in performance to its allied counterparts?

(offensive and defensive considerations)