ATG issues revisited

[Redwolf]

The guns can't properly dig in and camouflage in CMBN. That's why you can't match historical accounts where tankers were often completely unable to advance because they couldn't see single blocking guns even after sacrificing multiple vehicles.

Every gun in CMBN, even if set up in advance, behaves like it has just been dropped from the tow and sits on the ground.

As long as BFC doesn't make the step to drastically increase abstracted terrain for concealment and cover that won't change.

CMx1 worked better for this particular detail (matching historical tanker accounts), because BFC could just "set" a certain expectation for concealment in certain types of terrain. You just set a number. You don't have to adjust the 3D model to match your expectation in a try-and-error cycle.

[Erwin]

Okay, so to all scenario designers, consider fielding at least 2 ATG's or a platoon in your scenarios if they are to be useful. Otherwise, they are essentially one shot wonders.

The issue with committing an ATG is that one may lose more points losing the ATG (and crew) after one or two shots than it's worth risking it in the first place.

Certainly guns re very hard to use when on the offense. I basically sat mine out in a safe place for the first three missions of KG Engel since they were attacks. (I used the ATG's halftrack separately as a transport, supply "truck", and as a radio source for C2 issues.)

They'd be more useful if one only has inf and on the defense. But, if you have tanks, I'd recommend leaving ATG's at home.

[Redwolf]

The other defensive problem, in CMx1 and CMx2, is that there is no zeroing in model that would really do what's happening in reality justice. It's like I said before, a gun effectively behaves like it has been dropped off the tow just 30 seconds ago and no preparations for firing, defense or camouflage have been made.

That's why ambushes that would have been deadly for the attacker and leave only headlong retreat as an option can lead to even fights in CM.

(yes I know what the zeroing in in CMx1 but it wasn't really effective due to it's limitations)

[YankeeDog]

One trick that will help your ATGs live a longer life is to try to find so-called "fighting crest" positions for them -- that is, the AT gun equivalent of "hull down" -- positions where enemy LOF to the lower half of the gun carriage is blocked by terrain, but the gun barrel and sight are high enough to see over terrain and fire on the enemy.

IME, such a position, on average, dramatically increases the lifespan of a gun once it is spotted and comes under fire.

In fact, I would generally prefer a gun position in open terrain on a fighting crest to a gun position in woods or similar terrain, but not on a fighting crest.

One tricky thing about finding these positions is that getting best placement within the action square depends a lot on which the direction the gun is facing when it sets up -- you can actually tweak the gun's location within the action square by altering the facing with the FACE command. This is fine during setup phase, but it can be difficult to estimate the best position for a gun if you need to place the gun during the battle.

[Pete Wenman]

Everything can die in the game, so it's a matter of pay off.

I find ATG's can be very useful, and a real pain to deal with. Sure they are likely to die at some stage but they can also slow down or break an attack.

As for positioning -

as Yankee Dog mentions fighting crest is good,

some maps have usefully placed 1 action square depressions, a lite gun pit

behind walls/bocage

keyholes

750m+ range

if more than ATG in play ensure they have interlocking fields of fire.

have an anti armour plan that uses all AT assets

cover arcs to hold fire if necessary

plenty of things can be done with ATG's

my 2p

P

[sburke]

if you want the effect of a bore sighted AT gun, you need to get a trp. Use that for both the AT gun and your mortars to suppress any accompanying infantry.

I gotta admit, I haven't been near that lucky eliminating AT guns, nor have mine been eliminated so easily. Even in battles where I spotted a gun, after trying to douse it with mortar rounds that suppressed the crew, all I'd managed to do was create enough dust to lose sight of it again..and have it take out another tank. vKleist can attest to the struggle I had with his AT guns playing Die Ammis Kommen. Snake eye I still curse your name when I remember my flaming wrecks... Seriously good fun

[black_prince]

Just carried out a little test to satisfy my own curiosity about how spotting/hitting a well positioned ATG plays out in the game. I only did 5 runs which I realise is too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. However what I did take away from it is that there is alot of variability in game and people should resist jumping to conclusions based on one or two incidents (this is a general point and not aimed at the OP).

I had a Sherman with 76mm gun in the open facing a Pak40 with a short target arc behind the crest of a hill. In each test run the Pak spotted the Sherman almost immediately. Here's the data from the tests:

1x Sherman M4a1(76) vs 1x Pak40 positioned behind a hill crest

regular

unbuttoned

facing towards ATG

range: 1040metres

1st test: approx 4 minutes to spot

1st round struck forward slope

2nd round hit

2nd test

3 minutes to spot

1st round high

2nd struck forward slope

3rd round struck forward slope

4th round is high (but very close)

5th round struck the forward slope

6th round hit

3rd test

4 minutes 40 seconds to spot

1st round high

2nd round struck forward slope

3rd round high

4th round struck forwarrd slope

5th round crest-1 casualty (red) amongst the crew

6th round struck forwad slope

7th round hit

4th test

2minutes 20 seconds to spot

1st round struck to the left of the gun, incapacitating all but 1 of the crewmen

2nd round struck the crest

3rd round hit

5th test

5 minutes 7 seconds to spot

1st round high

2nd round high

3rd round struck the forward slope

4th round hit

[Medex]

Certainly guns re very hard to use when on the offense. I basically sat mine out in a safe place for the first three missions of KG Engel since they were attacks. QUOTE]

I used my gun to good effect in the first two Engel maps. I was impressed with the performance both times. On the second map I was given hints by the designer about possible enemy attack approaches. So put the gun in a spot where I thought armour may make an appearance and I'm glad I did cause it bagged a few tanks. I haven't played the third map yet but it sounds like a defend and run scenario. Got to go rescue a big kitty. I'm not sure where to put the AT gun on that one. Don't know if I like the default position.

[Erwin]

I don't think you'll have time to use the AT gun in the Tiger Rescue mission. At least I didn't find any good place to put it that wouldn't invite rapid KIA by rapidly advancing enemy tanks (or it was so out of the way as to be useless).

Again, I found that where I have armor they are much better at killing enemy armor (and surviving - cos they can move immediately).

Am just bummed that I lost it so easily in mission 4. I didn't realize they got no defensive benefit from foxholes (I thought the crew would at least). Next time I get an ATG I'll keep it deeper in the woods and ignore defenses like trenches and foxholes.

[Sublime]

I don't think you'll have time to use the AT gun in the Tiger Rescue mission. At least I didn't find any good place to put it that wouldn't invite rapid KIA by rapidly advancing enemy tanks (or it was so out of the way as to be useless).

Again, I found that where I have armor they are much better at killing enemy armor (and surviving - cos they can move immediately).

Am just bummed that I lost it so easily in mission 4. I didn't realize they got no defensive benefit from foxholes (I thought the crew would at least). Next time I get an ATG I'll keep it deeper in the woods and ignore defenses like trenches and foxholes.

Actually I placed my AT gun on the hill on your back right flank (facing US lines) and killed a buttload of enemy tanks that way. I also put a couple of 81mms on there to DF and they caused havoc. eventually they got shelled to pieces but oh well.

Funny thing is when I did get the crew to the KT - the first time I played with one in CMBN, me getting delayed by an ambush meant the US was overrunning the position so it shot up two tanks and some US troops and they close assaulted it and knocked it out! LOL!

Anyways I liked KG Engel's missions and idea, but I really didnt like how you were completely replenished force wise often. The next battle I've got a KT plus a buttload of other armor too. I understand a lot of the battles would leave players with next to nothing, but part of the fun of a core force to me is trying to save my troops. Plus things like a JPanther or KT should be watched as they're so rare, not thrown into every situation bc I know it'll be replaced...

-post edit-

also for what its worth.. my 2 cents on ATGs against a human opponent - They're effective weapons IMO. Yes, you can't simulate a lot of things that made ATGs much more lethal, and a lot of the smaller map sizes take away from where weapons like 88s would shine - but if you use the smaller caliber weapons I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised. For one the Brit 6 pdrs can and will penetrate Tiger I side armor, even sometimes frontal with APDS. And the US 57mm is lethal on side shots, and the benefit is these have lower firing signatures meaning you can ping away sometimes for several turns without even being spotted. The German 50mm will easily KO most Allied armor as well. 75s are nice too, but theyre bigger and accordingly are spotted much quicker. It's about placement, and timing. If you fire at distance its harder to spot, but hits become less likely, and kills as well. You may not have as many targets as well, and surprise is lost. However, closer in, if you cannot end the engagement by killing the enemy in a quick ambush, the proliferation of enemy units being closer means your ATG will be spotted, and there will be all sorts of return fire howling in quickly to boot.

[Erwin]

In that mission I deployed the ATG on the extreme left flank where it could see and cover the most ground from an attacker's flank. Natch not a single enemy tank (or any enemy units) came that way.

The reason I didn't deploy on the right as you did was that I couldn't see how to evacuate it to one of the German exit zones from there. Takes too long to load up and then it's fairly dense woods to get to the closest German exit area. I was more concerned about evacuating my units safely. It did seem that the main Allied attack was on the German right flank. Did your gun survive?

BTW: I enjoyed the initial race to save the Tiger. I got it with the loss of one crew, but that thing stopped anything coming down the road it was on.

I agree that 100% replacement for the next mission seemed a bit weird. There should be some resupply and replacement to make a campaign enjoyable, but I would have put it at around 25% replacement/resupply.

[StellarRat]

The best way to "hide" an AT gun is to keyhole it so the LOF is very narrow. If you position it so it has wide field of fire you are also making vulnerable to spotting/counterfire from all over the map. The only time I'd do That is when the gun has a such substantial accuracy advantage like an 88 on a hilltop way back fromthe battlefield.

[Broadsword56]

And a good "keyhole" is also one that's behind a hill or reverse slope, facing in such a way as to ambush enemy armor in the side as it passes -- or better yet from the rear after it has passed. AT guns deployed this way are nearly impossible to spot and suppress/kill by the advancing attacker unless your opponent gets lucky with area bombardment. It's really important to think of defense in depth (little islands of mutually supportive strongpoints and resistance nests), and not in terms of a "line." For Germans, especially, their doctrine was to let the enemy penetrate, hit them from flank/rear with these deep AT and HMG assets, and then use mobile reserves to counterattack the worn down and isolated, overextended enemy attackers.

[Erwin]

Obviously I agree with that. However, it's not always easy to find such sweet spots that enemy armor will actually traverse. Too many times, I have plunked an ATG down and it's useless for the rest of the game.

But, if one waits for an enemy attack to be underway, it's often too late to transport to a position and deploy. (Maybe the maps are still mostly too small for such maneuver.)

And then there is the issue of how to use em on the offense. If you move em to a place they can see an armor target, it will certainly see and target the gun first. Inf guns a are a bit easier as they can be out of small arms range and bombard a position (again assuming a large enuff map with long enuff LOS).

Also, do you plan for the AT gun to survive, if it has to be loaded on a transport and taken away?

Am curious if Sublime's gun was successfully evacuated off the map per orders/Victory Conditions.

My sense is that if one is designing an attack scenario/mission, the scenario designer may as well dispense with any ATG's as the best thing is to not use em at all. In an inf or mech unit the ATG is useful to defend against counterattacks. So, yes, more useful in defense, or if the scenario includes an enemy counterattack. Seems odd to combine ATG's with armor formations.

[StellarRat]

They're pretty useless on the offense. The only time that's ever worked for me is when enemy was far away and I managed to drag some 57mms just far enough over a slope to engage some tanks that were already under air attack. Five guns survived long enough to knock two tanks.

[Broadsword56]

Interesting to consider what (if any) role towed AT guns might be able to play on offense. They never really attacked, but the British doctrine intended them to move up quickly after an attack to consolidate gains:

Ian Daglish, in his FANTASTIC book "Over The Battlefield: Operation Epsom," has a 9-page appendix on British antitank forces and their tactics in Normandy. He writes on p 235:

"The General idea in Normandy came to be that tanks would support infantry onto the objective, remaining to defend against armoured counterattack only as long as it took specialist antitank forces to come forward and get into position...

"In the advance, the intention was to get antitank platoon guns established on a captured position within 15 minutes, in the expectation of an armoured counterattack within 30. In Normandy, this was a tall order..."

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting stuff.

[Erwin]

Wonder if it's possible to design a scenario in which one's armor needs to exit the map within (say) 30 minutes after start of the attack to gain any points (or you lose points if you do not). Meanwhile, ATG's arrive as reinforcements 20 minutes into the scenario in order to defend vs a counterattack.

[Sublime]

Erwin, unfortunately they did not. I fully planned to evacuate the area as well. Unfortunately in my lunge for the Tiger II I lost most of my pioneer platoon, then a Pz IV and Pz II that I sent as support got embroiled in a running firefight - eventually being KO'd along with the Tiger II. Cost the US several tanks and at least a company of troops. On my right a running fight where I ambushed, pulled back, ambushed, etc eventually cost me another Pz IV and Pz II, but in return my Panthers killed about 20 something tanks and a buttload of infantry. These kills being shared with my mortars and ATG.

The heavy woods and exposure of the position worried me about the possibility of a pull out of my weapons on the hill. Heavy Ami shelling wounded or killed a few ATG crew members, but suprisingly the gun was never KO'd, just throughout the scenario more and more crew were picked off by close landing artillery before they finally were wiped out. I was shunting support weapons onto and off of that hill however, I had mortar trucks run another mortar team by where it sounds like you had your ATG, to the hill, along with a couple of supply runs.

While causing fantastic Ami casualties, I took too many of my own, and mistimed some of my withdrawals. My force was shaved down and down, by the end very little troops were left.

So I understand why the replacement/refitting, especially with battles like that. I just dont think you should get every unit back, especially not ones like elite sniper teams or KTs.

[winkelried]

A bit OT - my solution to the KT battle in KT Engel: just kept a few scouts on the map to avoid nasty surprises. Drove all other units except the tanks off map. Killed as much armor with the KT and the Panthers and exited them and the scouts before the Allies could reach their exit zone. Called it my day an won.

[Erwin]

Between Sublime's and winkelried's approaches are the two extremes of what could be done in that scenario.

Presumably, wink. you rescued the KT and then backed off everything else other than the KT and PzV's... Smart strategy, but a bit gamey and you kinda miss the fun of the battle imo.

Have also found that it's frequently the case that an early Ceasefire in a CM2 game vs the AI (so all campaign scenarios) results in a victory. That's a problem with the new system - it often results in extreme or weird results.

Sublime tried to "follow orders" as they would probably be intended in RL and ended up losing most of his command. But, the campaign designer gives one everything back in the next mission - which is also a bit naff...

I tried to take a middle ground approach between the two (and I successfully loaded up and evacuated the ATG). Lost only one PzIV and a few inf to get a draw (altho' nearly all the armor were pretty beat up). But, I felt that my efforts to keep units alive didn't bring satisfaction when I realized that all was replaced in the next mission - brand spanking new - so it really didn't matter.

I don't think it's a good idea for designers to simply replace everything in a subsequent campaign mission. A 30%-50% replacement of men, equipment and ammo is adequate, so that economy of force and ammo consumption is an issue for the player.

[winkelried]

Presumably, wink. you rescued the KT and then backed off everything else other than the KT and PzV's... Smart strategy, but a bit gamey and you kinda miss the fun of the battle imo.

maybe. you can't win without a giving a fight. that's for sure. so the question is - do I need to fight in force and take (unnecessary) losses or do i stand with my strongest mobile elements and cover the retreat of all vulnerable forces and try to inflict as much damage as possible.

i think, that i interpreted my orders in the best sense of Auftragstaktik and saved my soft force to fight on another day and inflicted heavy losses with the heavies to the enemy.

btw - the Allies still reached the exit zone as far as i remember, but my tanks inflicted so heavy losses (w/o any own losses) that i won anyway.

i believe, that

1. the scenario designer should make sure, that the victory conditions are set in a way, that an early ceasefire will not tilt the outcome in an unwanted way - therefore avoid "gamey" tactics.
   
2. that "old fashioned" CMx1 players (just as myself) have some trouble with an early ceasefire - which is basically breaking off the current battle after achieving the main targets.
   

i liked the approach in the "Letzte Hoffnung" campaign too, because there were always exit zones where you could get rid of unwanted/unneeded units and therefore could avoid unnecessary losses too.

[winkelried]

But, I felt that my efforts to keep units alive didn't bring satisfaction when I realized that all was replaced in the next mission - brand spanking new - so it really didn't matter.

Same happened to me. I would have preferred an approach where I would have got additional equipment to the depleted one i already had. E.g. having some repairs perfomed on my already used vehicles and received some (new) additional tanks.

btw in the campaign around the 11. panzerdivision at montelimar i currently work on, you'll get no replacements (there were none during the whole week), but you'll get some fresh troops (of varied quality) and some repaired vehicles.

[Erwin]

Wink: Despite the seeming attractions of historical accuracy, I would suggest that you do allow some replacements etc to make your campaign fun and playable without restarting.

There is nothing worse that having to replay even one mission just to have enuff forces to continue.

In CMSF's ROAD TO DINAS (xnt campaign btw) I recall getting halfway thru before realizing that I had no way to continue due to errors in the early missions, and had to restart the whole thing. Replaying missions is just awful when you know what will happen.

And you have a good point re us oldtimer CM1 players not liking early ceasefires. What puzzles me is how you did so well with ONLY the best armor. I thought I had inflicted significant losses on the Allies, but it's true I did lose some infantry (not a lot). I thought my armor did ok. Maybe it was the inf losses and the one PzIV lost that caused it to end up as a draw?

I find the way CM2 calculates the victory level to be very unpredictable/unstable. By doing ceasefires at various stages of another scenario I found one can go from a loss to a Total Victory with very few extra enemy units panicked/KIA. It is not a gradual calculation like it was in CM1.

[Sgt Schultz]

Erwin, you got hosed by the percentages there. That was a lucky shot by a lucky or highly trained/motivated crew.

I can only speak from the German side, but ATGs can be spotted much easier than Infantry Guns. The 75/76 family of ATGs are spotted quite quickly once they fire, even in decent concealment. 88s scream "KILL ME". They may as well have signs posted.

The SiG33 150mm however, is a stealthy beast... even when towed into position and set up after start. As long as proper care is taken re: concealment and "hull-down", it will lay waste to all and sundry. Ask sublime about that.

Map makers should be aware of the -1 meter hollow that helps conceal all towed guns. Just plop down a few of these in likely spots, and add a little judicious concealing terrain. It makes a large difference in survival, if not spotting. "Historical accuracy" be damned. If there is a gun, it needs a spot to fight from.

Range uber alles! If you are firing from under 700+ meters, the map is most likely too small for effective 75/76mm ATG use(all other things being equal). You will get your shots, but the gun WILL die soon. Whether that is "accurate" or not is not a concern for me, since I am not training to time-travel to WW2. I work within the constraints of the engine. Here in CM-land we live in that fuzzy area between game and sim. Allowances should be made.

The 50mm+ family of door-knockers are a great compromise between stopping power and stealth. Those annoying little gnats of doom can be fired from ranges that would mean insta-death for a larger weapon. I have seen the towing vehicle before the gun itself on numerous occasions.

For QBs, I look at it from a cost/benefit standpoint. Does your ATG cost less than the 1.5 vehicles it will kill before mortars fall? Is that worth it to you?

For those whose ATGs are spotted before firing... you're doing it wrong. Try again.