Bone_Vulture

To my knwoledge, the biggest factor is the gun's caliber / general size. A measly 20mm flak can dish out many salvos at the distance before being spotted; a 75mm Pak is likely to be spotted from the second round, or it'll give a sound contact close enough to attract mortar fire. And in my opinion, trenchs are still way too easily spotted to be useful in ambush role.

Unlike trenches, foxholes are usually only spotted once the occupant opens fire. Trenches are visible from afar, and often attract pre-emptive bombardment, or are at least blinded with smoke. So if you're aiming for the advantage of ambush, trenches are out of the question. Nothing can spare the guns from the horror that are field mortars, save dumb luck - either in the form of really bad bombardment, or poorly concealed enemy mortar team.

That's because this isn't real life, thankfully. In CM, it's rarely a good idea to have multiple layers of defense. Although this sounds brash, I'd say that attempting to evacuate your forces from the first line of defense causes too much casualties. It appears to be a better solution to have a single solid defense line that is reinforced from the rear, and locally beefed by more mobile units. This is just my personal experience though, not common opinion.

Continuing Sergei's advice... when you set the keyhole position for your AT gun, make sure your narrow field of fire covers terrain where enemy tanks have difficulty to maneuver. For example, narrow corridors of grass between patches of forest, vast fields of marshland or mud, and so on. Obviously this only works on maps with very thick foliage; in more open maps enemy tanks have room to select best paths of approach, and also there's the least amount of keyhole positions. In situations like this, you might want to go for fire volume and advantage of range (and this is usually a viable option only for late war German Pak's). Sergei made an important point about buttoning up the tanks beforehand: cupola or not, a buttoned tank is a lot more blind than an unbuttoned one. Also, tanks button up quite hastily; even scattered rifle / LMG fire at long distances is likely to cause tanks to close hatches. Using HMGs at long distance is also a practical tactic to harass the enemy's scouting infantry, further hindering his ability to borg spot. Finally, remember that very few AT guns have the mobility to change positions after being exposed: an experienced opponent will call deadly field mortar fire on your guns the very next turn after they're exposed. This means that it's imperative that you do not show your hand before the enemy exposes its main armor force. Any armchair commander worth his/her salt will attempt to smoke out your AT guns before sending the expensive tanks to the front. They'll send scouts and light vehicles, trying to badger you in firing and exposing your guns. So design your defense so that the AT guns have auxiliaty defenses sharing a common field of fire; like armored cars with light guns, or AT rifle teams. Keeps these auxiliary forces mobile, so that they can support AT guns across your defense line.

One more thing about AT guns: since they are immobile, you'll need the advantage of ambush or superior numbers in order to use them efficiently. In an ideal situation, you have set two AT guns around the opposing edges of the field, so each has a keyhole vision to the other gun's general area of fire. This way, it's likely that you'll be firing at an enemy tank simultaneously from two different angles, vastly increasing the chance of deadly hits. Going for flank hits is the first priority of lone AT guns. Aiming at a flanking tank has three major advantages: 1) Flank of a tank much easier to hit 2) Easier to penetrate 3) Grants you more time before the tank can wheel to face you. Use your expendable infantry or fast, light vehicles to attract the attention of enemy armor to favorable direction.

Bingo.

I have heard of ad hoc solutions during WW2, usually during the first half of operation Barbarossa, when the German advance was so fast that Soviet artillery units in the rear were suddenly in front, facing spearheading German armor. Whether field artillery pieces were used for DF after the tide of the war had turned, I'm not certain. Purposely attempting to haul heavy artillery to the enemy's line of fire sounds rather risky.

Ok, I currently don't have the time to reinstall CM:BB, so could someone verify me this: can you see your opponent's unexposed mines in the AAR screen? .... And another thing I can't remember: I'm not totally sure whether triggering an AT mine automatically reveals the whole mine field item?

Germans are usually the underdogs in the early war matches, since CMBB doesn't realistically simulate the real-life air superiority and envelopment tactics, unless the opponent is wiling to accept handicaps.

... And that's why you should view the map from your opponent's point of view during setup. Very few players set their guns in random locations; usually they seek good vantage points, more senior players also check for potential keyhole locations. When attacking, you should always keep the mortars following the troops that are most likely to suffer from incoming field gun fire. Depending on your previous conflicts with the opponent, the force mix, match type and the total amount of points, you should have a rough picture on what your opponent is likely to purchase. Dirt cheap infantry guns? AT guns? Massive 150mm groundbreakers? From earlier experience I can say that you should always have a supporting medium mortar per 2-2,5 infantry platoons in order to thwart field gun threats.

Just my quick take: Personally, I don't like massing my tanks; since you're only allowed to readjust your commands every sixty seconds, I feel that a tightly knit group of tanks might fall into an ambush, or face a superior opposing force; effectively wiping out all of my armor. I should know, I once had a mid-war Stug in a perfect sniping spot, and took out a cluster of five Soviet tanks out easily at 200 meters.

Fire all your other ammunition into the woods first?

Bah, the real catch-22 is that if a gun cannot be spotted and bombarded by field mortars from afar, it doesn't have a fire arc that'd jeopardize your approaching troops. :cool:

To the "peng" thread with you.

At what range?

Was there a penetration message? I think not. So it was a mine, or an artillery shell.

Well, it's been awhile since I've played. But I'm still confident that you ran into a mine; a lone artillery shell would've caused additional ruckus.

Simple. You set your gun in deep concealment, and start firing away. Usually you'll rake firing slit penetrations before your gun is even spotted.

Oh yeah, completely forgot about the arcs. Yes, set your team a very limited arc to keep it from firing. And obviously set the team in deep concealment (forest or rough) and behind the frontline, so it'll draw a minimal amount of enemy fire.

Well, uh... If you weren't playing as the Soviets: you can never see your opponent's TRP's, not even in the aftermath map.

For the umpteenth time... USe mortars for: 1) Taking out field guns 2) Quick suppression (against MG's, for instance) 3) Providing pockets of smoke (works best in tightly knit terrain) In order to fire indirectly, the mortar command contact to a HQ unit that 1) Isn't hiding 2) Has LOS to the target. After this you just aim at the spot with your mortar, and the rounds start flying. Notice that you can't follow moving target when firing indirectly; the shells fall to the same spot ad infinitum. So be sure to cancel the bombardment once you're done.

You mean in a middle of a line of vehicles? First of all, mines are not 100% sure shot weapons; sometimes a handful of vehicles pass through unscathed - and unaware - before someone trips a mine. Also, you can never see the opponent's mines in the aftermath screen, although all the rest of his equipment is clearly visible.

Indeed. Yes, they can. Ironically, the common opinion is that grenades are more effective than molotovs, yet the (usually Soviet) squads are eager to waste time and lives chucking the worthless bottles at tanks before switching to grenades.

I haven't studied any literature on the Maus specifically, byt I believe it was a part of the nazi "wunderwaffe" philosophy. Such a seemingly indestructible tank would've been great material for propaganda purposes, and perhaps the designers also had a twisted logic of economics: If you could use a similar amount of raw material and labor to build, say, 10 Stugs or one Maus, maybe they thought that the following would happen: in the first battle of 10 Stugs vs 10 T-34-85's, at least a third of the Stugs would be inevitably lost. The Maus instead, would both destroy all the enemy tanks, and would be ready for the next match with minor polishing and oil change. The reduction of tank losses would also spare the dwindling pool of elite tank crews.

Somehow I sense that the development team already has a wishlist big as a telephone directory...