Broadsword56 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I was shocked to set up German heavy AT teams and 88 flak teams and then discover that -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the 88s are totally static in CMBN. Even if you give the Germans some Opel Blitz trucks it won't do any good because the 88s don't seem able to limber up. Any reason for this omission, BFC? Given how hard CMBN makes it to realistically conceal AT guns, and that the only way the game gives us to "dig them in" or protect them is sandbag walls, it would seem that at least these guns ought to have mobility so they can arrive and move in as reinforcements, be moved to alternate sites, into action, or out of danger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Too big, too heavy, too slow. It's not just the 88 that is affected. The British 17-pr, for example, apparently took approximately 12-hrs to set up and dig in. These are not toys you zoom around from place to place. Set them up in good positions initially, then expect to lose them anyway. Because ... that's exactly what happened. Which is why A-Tk guns progressively became more SP and more armoured as the war advanced. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statisoris Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The German Sd Kfz 7 (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sd.Kfz._7) could tow the 88mm Flak 36 but is not yet included in the game. Like a lot of larger artillery pieces the gun was just too much for the Opel trucks to handle and thus they require special purpose gun tractors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostRider3/3 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Yeah,.... when can we start seeing the SdKfz-7 driving around. I love loading up almost an entire squad and driving that beast down the road. the Flak version is great to, miss them from the old versions of CMAK and CMBB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It's a pig that takes a half-hour to pack up, and needs a tractor to pull. Unless the map provides 800 meter+ ranges, stick with the 75mm or Russian 76.2mm. The 88mm is a monster that is spotted as soon as eyes get on it. Friendly smoke screens can block LOS to break off mortar attacks, which can prolong the ATG's life a tad. At present, unless you have a large map, the thing is a neat toy that dies after it blows up a tank or two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 My advice for using an 88 is to place a false nose, false moustache and fake glasses on it after it has fired, if that doesn't work then thats tough !!! you shouldn't have started the war in the first place !!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 But my god can a well-placed 88 be hell on a large map with a good LOS!!! You better hope you can get some 81mm mortars to rain down on it!! I really hope that team BF gives more options for digging AT guns in for the Eastern Front campaign. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Wotherspoon Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Too big, too heavy, too slow. It's not just the 88 that is affected. The British 17-pr, for example, apparently took approximately 12-hrs to set up and dig in. These are not toys you zoom around from place to place. Set them up in good positions initially, then expect to lose them anyway. Because ... that's exactly what happened. Which is why A-Tk guns progressively became more SP and more armoured as the war advanced. 12 hours to set up a 17pdr? I don't think so... If you are talking about a fully developed AT position with overhead cover and trenches for the guncrew, I could believe it, but just to unlimber the gun and set it up was closer to 12 minutes than 12 hours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 12 hours to set up a 17pdr? I don't think so... If you are talking about a fully developed AT position with overhead cover and trenches for the guncrew, I could believe it, but just to unlimber the gun and set it up was closer to 12 minutes than 12 hours. Do you think there might be a reason I said "set up and dig in", rather than "set up." 17-pr were high level assets that weren't just sprinkled around the battlefield on a whim. They were positioned and sighted as back-stops. But even so, once they were down, they were down to stay until the battle went away, or they died. Consider also the oft-told tale of von Luck during Goodwood. Those 88s in Cagny didn't upsticks and bugger off, though it seems like that's what the bty comd desperately wanted to do. They were immobile in the village but happily (or unhappily, depending on your POV) happened to have LOS over one of the main British axes of advance, and were in good cover/concealment and able to wreck great execution on the advancing British tanks.. Even so, I'd bet dollars to donuts they never moved again, were destroyed in position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Rocket or recoilless rifle launched HEAT was a god sent invention for infantry, and something that most tank generals probably curse to this day. Although at least nowadays the anti-tank guns will push themselves. 125mm Sprut-B ATG: The most distinctive feature of the Sprut-B is its Auxiliary Power Unit, which can propel the gun on relatively flat surfaces (up to 15 degrees slope) and at 14 km/h on roads. This gives the gun a measure of mobility on the battle field—although it takes 2 minutes to go from firing position to travelling position and 1.5 minutes to go from travelling position to firing position. 14 km/h is pretty good, the crew is going to end exhausting themselves running after the gun! That would be fun to have in Shock Force 2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Consider also the oft-told tale of von Luck during Goodwood. Those 88s in Cagny didn't upsticks and bugger off, though it seems like that's what the bty comd desperately wanted to do. They were immobile in the village but happily (or unhappily, depending on your POV) happened to have LOS over one of the main British axes of advance, and were in good cover/concealment and able to wreck great execution on the advancing British tanks.. Even so, I'd bet dollars to donuts they never moved again, were destroyed in position. BTW, in his book on Goodwood, Ian Daglish spends considerable space debunking that story. Apparently those guns were never there and the whole episode was a figment of Luck's imagination or him misremembering something that did occur. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaeger Jonzo Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 i thought 88's were able to be fired still limbered? Not ideal, but still useful if necessary! I have seen footage in the desert of them doing that. I am sure i also read (from a book, not internet!) that an 88 with an experienced crew could unlimber and set into a firing position within minutes, not half an hour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 i thought 88's were able to be fired still limbered? Yeah, but it's tricky. The gun can only be fired a few degrees off its longitudinal axis and the towing vehicle has to be stopped so that it does not block the line of fire. This can work on the desert where you can see an approaching target far enough away so that you can get everything lined up right, but it wouldn't be so easy in the confined environment of Normandy. In fact, I have yet to hear of the tactic being used there. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgusEye Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Some remarks by the Germans about the use of the PAK43/41: Experiences with the 8,8 Pak 43/41 (From the lessons learned message of a heavy Pz Jäg Abt) 1. The mobility of the 8,8 Pak 43/41 (mot. Z.) has proven itself during the defensive fight to be better than originally anticipated. In quick position shifting of a whole company hour movements of 25 km were striven for. Such accelerated movements require good conditions though. Besides, it must be borne in mind that normal commercial vehicles will follow slower, so that with arrival at the new position one should count on limited ammunition (carried on tractors or Maultier-carriers). The situation dictated repeatedly that the position was assumed or left under enemy observed artillery fire or under attack from attack aircraft. However, everything should be done to avoid such position shifting in the future, because in this case not just the guns, but the entire unit can be destroyed. [...] Even though the deployment should be always aimed to be executed in well prepared firing positions, it has been shown that units of 8,8 Pak 43/41 (mot. Z.) by dint of their mobility in case of emergency can be also successfully used and deployed in pre-reconnoitered positions by fences, woods, villages, high corn fields and so forth, if proper positions cannot be built in advance. It must be striven for, however, that these positions should be eligible to be quickly vacated after the original enemy attack has been repelled. If the situation by exception forces the position to be tarried in after the original fight, then digging in should follow forthwith, to avoid great casualties. [...] The size of the guns forbids the deployment of the units of the 8,8 Pak 43/41 (mot. Z.) as positioned troops, which are committed to a position near the MLR for any extended time. On the other hand, it is worth attempting to deploy the schw Panzerjäger-Abteilung at positions of great armored danger in Schwerpunkte, where the most important thing is to use the great range of the guns by appropriate choice of positions. Where the terrain does not allow use of deep positions, one should use short duration deployments in the open in the front lines, where sight cover should not be avoided. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John1966 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 My advice for using an 88 is to place a false nose, false moustache and fake glasses on it after it has fired, if that doesn't work then thats tough !!! you shouldn't have started the war in the first place !!! SPOLIER! (If youv'e never played "A Delaying Action") Was just talking about "A Delaying Action" in another thread. There are two or three 88s in the woods. I did not spot them throughout the scenario despite them being responsible for an awful lot of Sherman related carnage. So if they're well placed... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdogg Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Yeah, but it's tricky. The gun can only be fired a few degrees off its longitudinal axis and the towing vehicle has to be stopped so that it does not block the line of fire. This can work on the desert where you can see an approaching target far enough away so that you can get everything lined up right, but it wouldn't be so easy in the confined environment of Normandy. In fact, I have yet to hear of the tactic being used there. Michael I've seen this as well, and come to think of it it was all footy from the Africa Korps. The fact that it was done in RL should be modeled though in CM at some point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 The problem with most of the German longer range equipment is that they were designed for much larger maps than we are seeing currently in CMBN. The 88, Marders, Nashorns etc are pretty much deathtraps if firing at targets under 1500 meters away. Ideally, 2Km ranges... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 So, when we've got the Commonwealth Module and we've got not only 88 flak and AT, but 88s running around on the turrets of Tiger tanks, I pray that CMBN will have been patched enough to let us play on adequately sized maps (granted, the stated max is 4 x 4 km, but experience is showing that the game has trouble supporting authentic and properly detailed maps at less than half that size.) This limitation hasn't mattered as much in the bocage, but in Calvados it could be a deal-breaker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostRider3/3 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 But my god can a well-placed 88 be hell on a large map with a good LOS!!! You better hope you can get some 81mm mortars to rain down on it!! I really hope that team BF gives more options for digging AT guns in for the Eastern Front campaign. I truly hope so, and more options for Pill box bunkers. I made a small scenerio where an 88mm was in a semi urban enviornment, covering a road and small clearing. I think its all depends on placement, because the gun lasted the entire scenerio and the US forces had Mortars. Any major Asset needs to be protected, wether its a valuable piece like the 88Flak gun or a Tiger Tank etc. Just randomly putting pieces on board with no thought is going to be frustrating... especially when you lose said piece. Placement, cover arcs, covering your flanks, and getting LOS to the enemy High points or their LOS areas where you can nuetralize their spotters etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave85 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 12 hours to set up a 17pdr? I don't think so... If you are talking about a fully developed AT position with overhead cover and trenches for the guncrew, I could believe it, but just to unlimber the gun and set it up was closer to 12 minutes than 12 hours. I have also read that the british took around 12 hours to create a 17 pdr position (about 3 hours for a 6 pounder I believe). This is why the british used their achilles tank destroyers soley as temporary fixed AT guns while digging in the towed guns, as opposed to the American method of using TD's to hunt tanks offensively. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrailApe Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I have also read that the british took around 12 hours to create a 17 pdr position (about 3 hours for a 6 pounder I believe). This is why the british used their achilles tank destroyers soley as temporary fixed AT guns while digging in the towed guns, as opposed to the American method of using TD's to hunt tanks offensively The Archer was the quick fix solution to get a 17lb deployed on tracks. I'll agree the Archer wasn't something you would go actively stalking tanks (driving backwards with the driver worried about a splattered head when the gun recoils), it was definetly an ambush weapon, but I can't remember reading anywhere that indicates the TD's used by the Brits solely to support infantry. I'll agree they were used more in an overwatch position and didn't go swanning about on their own, but the Firefly's were used in the same manner - more to do with the limited field of view in Normandy than actual doctrine (although doctrine is something the Brits didn't go a great bundle on). Are there any examples in Normandy of the US TD doctrine actually being used? (as opposed to slogging along supporting the infantry through the heges and fields) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Are there any examples in Normandy of the US TD doctrine actually being used? (as opposed to slogging along supporting the infantry through the heges and fields) IIRC, Harry Yeide in his Tank Killers mentions an instance. If I get seriously motivated (not very likely, TBH), I might dig out my copy and try to find the quote. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Are there any examples in Normandy of the US TD doctrine actually being used? Mortain counter attack in August. Also the attack by Lehr north towards Isigny in ... er ... late June(?) But the US didn't really face much in the way of armour, let alone armoured attacks, so largely their TD force in Normandy was redundant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.