Trouble sighting my AT guns?

[phil stanbridge]

I have a lot of trouble with AT gun deployment and placement in WEGO. It seems to take forever to find a place on the map that *might* be a good, safe location with LOS. But by the time the gun has moved into *roughly* the place I expect, it suffers from overly bad LOS or I can't get it placed. It takes me a long time to get eventually get the gun placed and in effective range of something. More often than not I lose the gun to rapidly advancing infantry or mortar fire before I can even get a shot off! So how do you deploy your AT guns?

[winkelried]

I have a lot of trouble with AT gun deployment and placement in WEGO. It seems to take forever to find a place on the map that *might* be a good, safe location with LOS. But by the time the gun has moved into *roughly* the place I expect, it suffers from overly bad LOS or I can't get it placed. It takes me a long time to get eventually get the gun placed and in effective range of something. More often than not I lose the gun to rapidly advancing infantry or mortar fire before I can even get a shot off! So how do you deploy your AT guns?

I usually use a patrol to scout for good AT gun positions. So i send forward a scout team or the ammo bearers to the position where i want to put the ATG.

In WEGO it is a bit tricky especially with CW troops since you have to dismount the carrier and then find somebody who will drive it away if you don't want to push the gun too far. To dismount in WEGO costs you a full minute since you can't give the order at a waypoint and you can't give an order what to do next when the unit has dismounted.

limbering up is best done under a smoke screen. I always give an ATG some infantry for cover maybe even an HMG or in US/CW one of the fine small mortars.

[dieseltaylor]

Siting is English for positioning , its different in Scottish : )

[womble]

Unless you've got a massive map, it's probably not anything you're doing wrong, beyond bringing them to the fight in the first place. As defensive systems, they can be made to work "historically", but trying to deploy them in a fluid situation is most times going to get them killed as you're finding.

If you can't find a reverse slope that you are prepared to let the enemy intrude upon, with decent sight lines to somewhere near your baseline, ATGs are going to be effectively lagging behind most MEs or attack situations. I say "effectively lagging behind" because they, for practical purposes, have to be several minutes ahead of the line of conflict, so they're ready and waiting when the line reaches their field of fire.

[phil stanbridge]

Siting is English for positioning , its different in Scottish : )

I am English

Okay, I'm about to 'site' the gun about 300m from a lot of enemy activity. I realise this is probably suicidal, but I fancy taking a chance. My forward observers have good LOS to the small village, so maybe my gun can deploy in the same spot and throw some 57mm HE their way! I will see what happens.

[womble]

I am English

Okay, I'm about to 'site' the gun about 300m from a lot of enemy activity. I realise this is probably suicidal, but I fancy taking a chance. My forward observers have good LOS to the small village, so maybe my gun can deploy in the same spot and throw some 57mm HE their way! I will see what happens.

Frankly, at 300m, it's not "a chance" it's just plain wasting assets (unless it's night and you're a hundred miles from Chicago, and the activity is Belushi and Ackroyd, short of smokes). ATGs sitting still behind bocage can get spotted at 200m in decent visibility; a crew moving around is likely to be spotted far sooner.

[phil stanbridge]

Frankly, at 300m, it's not "a chance" it's just plain wasting assets (unless it's night and you're a hundred miles from Chicago, and the activity is Belushi and Ackroyd, short of smokes). ATGs sitting still behind bocage can get spotted at 200m in decent visibility; a crew moving around is likely to be spotted far sooner.

Well... It worked. I lost two crew members but I managed to destroy a pesky German AFV that was blocking the road. Now they are firing HE at targets at will. It was a risk and not something I'd normally try, like you say, they are easy meat. But I had squads advancing on both flanks and plenty of suppressing fire so the targets probably couldn't get much off in return. That's the first time I've had any luck with a AT gun.

[womble]

Well... It worked. I lost two crew members but I managed to destroy a pesky German AFV that was blocking the road. Now they are firing HE at targets at will. It was a risk and not something I'd normally try, like you say, they are easy meat. But I had squads advancing on both flanks and plenty of suppressing fire so the targets probably couldn't get much off in return. That's the first time I've had any luck with a AT gun.

Congratulations on a well worked evolution sir!

Just goes to confirm "Who will not risk cannot win," I guess.

[WynnterGreen]

Well... It worked.

Was this against a human?

I can't imagine using ATGs this way .v. a human opponent coming off well very often.

ATGs seem to work best in ambush situations and defensively, even then expect artillery splashing down all over it as soon as it gives away its position.

They're probably also best positioned in places that have narrow angles of opportunity for enemy observers to get sight of the guns location and drop stuff on it.

Like, down a bocage lined road or artery that's key for moving enemy armour.

Narrow angles of attack for the enemy often means narrow fields of fire for the ATG of course, and if the position really is key, then it's going to attract a lot of attention from they enemy, which is bad luck for the gunners.

ATGs probably stand the best possibility of improvement in terms of relative usefulness with the introduction of a -cover armour- arc.

Meaning they can be set up to lay concealed in wait for armour assets to appear, rather than open up on the first enemy infantry unit they see, quickly attracting the attention of the arty boys.

Short -cover- arc in order to avoid shooting up the enemy scouting units is a poor substitute for a -cover armour- arc for wego players, as a minute is a long window for enemy armour to move into and out of sight of the gun in a single turn.

[dan/california]

A lot of this is map size. Employing these things per manual usually requires several times the amount of room on a CMBN map. It is a limitation that only Moore's law can fix.

[phil stanbridge]

Was this against a human?

Nope, against the AI. The map was a reasonable size (probably medium in the campaign) but because of the position of hedges/buildings and such like I couldn't find a favourable placement due to the LOS until I got within 300m.

A lot of this is map size. Employing these things per manual usually requires several times the amount of room on a CMBN map. It is a limitation that only Moore's law can fix.

Absolutely. Ideally I would have deployed the gun at the end of the map, but I simply couldn't find LOS.

[Tarquelne]

I'm in a PBEM, presumably against a human, and I've had reasonable success with moving AT guns.

In one case it's a light gun - far easier to move. It used hedges for cover.

The other gun was set up in a position with a limited field of view. I wouldn't exactly call it a keyhole, but it's far from wide and certainly protected from view when set-up. I just had to anticipate what'd be useful later.

Here's my lessons from this game:

1) Don't park fire-magnet like a tank near the gun, especially if the tank can be seen from much more of the map.

2) Don't unlimber until you're sure you're in the right position. The time saved isn't worth the pack/unpack-time paralysis if you need to move. *Especially* if you're parked near a fire-magnet.

I've had an opponent use AT guns well in a PBEM. Trucks took the guns through wooded areas and set them up within the tress on the far side , toward me.

Something all these not-disastrous examples have in common was excellent covering terrain and use of the gun not as part of the main attack, but to cover a flank or guard against future enemy movement.

[phil stanbridge]

I've got some more oddities here. I probably can't use these guns properly but it doesn't explain a few things I'm seeing.

I'm playing a mission in the campaign and I've now got some 76mm AT guns. But these are even harder to place than the 57's. How does sandbag or defensive placement effect the gun? Does it form extra protection and is it worth doing?

For instance, I have stuck a 76mm behind some sandbags and that is behind a hedge. It seems to almost totally block LOS. Yet if I move the sandbags, I gain some LOS. These sandbags are more of a hinderence than a help. I don't know how it does it but even if place a gun behind bags, and in a wooded area (light trees) the AI finds my gun almost immediately, even if it hasn't fired itself. I've just lost two guns that were supposedly 'dug-in' - both hadn't even fired a shot and both were hidden behind bushes/hedges and sandbags or foxholes. I don't know how the AI managed to spot these within 2 minutes but there you go. It wasn't even pre-registered artillery. I could see the tanks, but apparently I didn't have LOS. They did. I obviously need to experiment some more.

[womble]

...in a wooded area (light trees)...

Tree models give very little concealment to units on the same elevation. It's only when their canopies intersect the view line that they get in the way at all and the degree of obscurement is unpredictable/poorly related to the visual rendering of the leaf cover. If the floor cover looked like grass, then you were very little better off under the trees than you would have been out in the open.

...'dug-in'...hadn't even fired a shot and both were hidden behind bushes/hedges and sandbags or foxholes...

Bushes suffer from the same "unpredictable foliage" concealment as trees, I think.

Hedges don't offer much concealment, and less cover. Low Bocage tends to be much better. I've just had a 50mm survive about 40min engagement (expending all its HE and most of its AP) at sub-300m ranges with infantry and tanks without taking a single return round AFAICT, whereas the two MG42s in the vicinity took quite a bit of incoming (but weathered it well because of the Bocage's cover).

People have mentioned before that fortifications can make units easier to spot. If you've got Bocage to hide an ATG behind, adding fortifications seems like gilding the lily to me... foxholes, perhaps, to give the crew some fragment protection, but sandbags are spotted pretty early.

I could see the tanks, but apparently I didn't have LOS. They did. I obviously need to experiment some more.

Sometimes getting LOS/LOF through Bocage can be problemmatic, more so when fortifications are involved. Experimenting is the only way to get used to its ideosyncracies.

[phil stanbridge]

Very good post Womble thanks. So with my 76mm behind a sandbag wall but in amongst the light trees, that's really as good as being out in the open. ie. easily spotted? Damn.. I had no idea. I thought the tree line would offer more concealment at least, and the sandbag wall some little extra protection. But within a couple of turns I have lost the crew again (after a replay). So ideally the best place to stick a gun is behind low bocage?

[womble]

Very good post Womble thanks. So with my 76mm behind a sandbag wall but in amongst the light trees, that's really as good as being out in the open. ie. easily spotted? Damn.. I had no idea. I thought the tree line would offer more concealment at least, and the sandbag wall some little extra protection. But within a couple of turns I have lost the crew again (after a replay). So ideally the best place to stick a gun is behind low bocage?

Or the High kind. Bocage is great. If you're the defender

All "IME", of course.

Trees are sticks (which always block LOS and LOF if they intersect the line, are impenetrable to even the largest calibre weapon, though fragmentations can spray) with cotton wool balls on top (which sometimes block LOS and LOF, will sometimes absorb explosions and bullets, and sometimes won't). AFAICT, the shadows under trees don't seem to help much with concealment. Generally unreliable sorts, those trees, though they can sometimes help, especially against opponents on higher elevations.

[winkelried]

Or the High kind. Bocage is great. If you're the defender

All "IME", of course.

Trees are sticks (which always block LOS and LOF if they intersect the line, are impenetrable to even the largest calibre weapon, though fragmentations can spray) with cotton wool balls on top (which sometimes block LOS and LOF, will sometimes absorb explosions and bullets, and sometimes won't). AFAICT, the shadows under trees don't seem to help much with concealment. Generally unreliable sorts, those trees, though they can sometimes help, especially against opponents on higher elevations.

i am not sure yet, but am investigating this currently.

it seems to me, that either the scenario designers or CMx2 does not take into consideration the typical structure of european forests:

usually you find brush and bushes at the edge of the forests. these should provide pretty good concealment up to the first shot (at least in the time period we currently talk about june to august). then, depending on density and the type of trees there is much better visibility within the forest. usually pine tree forests don't show a lot of brushwork - leaf tree forests can be different. i am not sure how light forest and heavy forest impact concealment compared to each other.

[dieseltaylor]

In a 1930's economy trees in woods and copses were actually very well tended as a part of the economic life. So current views of woods maybe a little out. As for "forest" I linked to sample French images of "foret" and it show it can be quite open.

Copses and small woods probably even more open however undulations in the land may be what is needed to obscure an ATG from easy spotting.