Are ATGs considered camouflaged until they fire?

[John Kettler]

I had a 57 mm ATG in a beautiful keyhole position, behind a stone fence, firing arc in place to prevent revealing my position. Apparently, a Marder on the right end of the ridge (ATG completely hidden from frontal view and most of ridge, too) saw it and blasted it and the entire wall area to bits. Never fired a shot. Color me most unhappy! In CMx1 ATGs were considered camouflaged until they fired, and this one died still pointing at the covered arc straight before it, rather than the Marder on the ridge to the high left.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Childress]

Anti-tank guns are considered to possess enhanced concealment if they haven't moved from the beginning of the battle.

Aren't you getting sick of that Demo scenario yet?

[John Kettler]

Childress,

Hardly. Am still trying to find survivable ATG locations! The ATG that got blown to bits didn't move following setup, so I don't know what happened. Am trying out new tactics, too, some of which work well. Terrain constraints remain a bear--to me. Doesn't seem to impede the opposition's firing. Love being able to put down linear fire! Too bad it won't let me define the far endpoint unless it's in LOS.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Pak40]

If they are indeed considered to be camouflaged then they really need to look into improving it. I'm currently on mission in Scottish Corridor where I have a 17lbr setup behind a low bocage overlooking a road. On the first turn a MkIV comes up the road and stops about 400 meters from the AT gun, which has trouble spotting the tank due to other low bocage that are in the way. However, on the next turn the MkIV spots the AT gun and easily dispatches it. I reloaded and put the gun in the same spot with the same result. I will test this a few more times but I fail to see how a tank can spot a camouflaged AT gun behind a bocage while the gun cannot spot the tank.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Does the manual say there is a bonus? I've seen it said on the forum that there is one, but I don't know if there is any official source for that information.

[Chris Ferrous]

Tanks spotting, particularly ATGs, and firing on the fly very nearly put me off this game in the early days. I think the first patch improved things a little but not that much.

I set-up a Market Garden type scenario, with Shermans running along the top of a dyke on a main road and various sized ATGs hidden in orchards and woodland 200-300m away. The ATG hardly got off a shot despite not having moved and in some tests still being in hide mode, and yet the Shermans were beautifully silhouetted on top of the dyke. I tried playing both sides in RT with the same result.

[Michael Emrys]

Based on observations reported here, it seems that spotting from AFVs, especially closed ones, has been greatly exaggerated in the game. The situations described in this thread to my mind sound grossly unhistorical.

Michael

[womble]

"Stone Fence" provides excellent cover against small arms. It's less effective concealment. Generally, anything behind a stone wall that can be shot over will get spotted tout sweet. Any bonus for "initial camouflage" (which I thought applied til it moved) won't compensate for this drawback in your siting of the gun.

ATGs that don't move are hard for the enemy to spot. I've had them sitting behind bocage at 250-300m range and run down their entire ammunition supply (mostly at infantry targets) without having come under fire, whereas the HMG team a couple of AS away attracted plenty of incoming.

[Bigduke6]

What Womble said. I was in a quick battle against a human (well, more or less) opponent and I bought like six 57mm to set up inside a village that had some trees clumped here and there. So I put the guns in the clumps, set "hide" and waited for the panzers. Lo an behold and every one of those guns gets mortared or MGed to death. Post-battle I find my opponent's scouts spotted them, usually at ranges of 500 meters or so. We thought about that a bit, and realized the engine had created a village that was essentially a golfing green with some buildings and trees planted in it.

Put a gun on a golfing green a half-kilometer in direct LOS of me, and yeah, I'll probably spot it too.

Bottom line, for a gun to have any chance of staying hidden it needs good concealing terrain, which would be debris, bush, tall grass, something like that. It's not like CM1 where is the unit is on "hide" the game engine sort of assumes the unit has sought out the best hidey-spot in the 40 meter square it's in, and gives it an initial camoflage bump. In CM2, either it's good concealment or not.

Also, it sure seems to me buttoned-up vehicles find targets very well indeed, just in a pretty narrow arc. But from what I have seen to the front of a tank it really doesn't matter much if the TC is up or down, as far as spotting things is concerned. This is an impression not an established fact though.

[jep]

If they are indeed considered to be camouflaged then they really need to look into improving it. I'm currently on mission in Scottish Corridor where I have a 17lbr setup behind a low bocage overlooking a road. On the first turn a MkIV comes up the road and stops about 400 meters from the AT gun, which has trouble spotting the tank due to other low bocage that are in the way. However, on the next turn the MkIV spots the AT gun and easily dispatches it. I reloaded and put the gun in the same spot with the same result. I will test this a few more times but I fail to see how a tank can spot a camouflaged AT gun behind a bocage while the gun cannot spot the tank.

Spotting is problematic in tank versus tank battles too. Does not make much sense that two M10 destroyers won't spot a Panther that is only 100-200 meters away. Especially since it was shot by the very same M10 destroyers only two(?) minutes ago. Well, there was smoke pouring out of Panthers but those TD never realized that smoke had disappeared! Perhaps they were in a "coffee-break" mode but one would hope soldiers were more interested when some one wants to kill them.

Main problem seems to be that the engine does not understand if target were seen by spotting unit before LOS was blocket by something.

[Chris Ferrous]

In my 'Tank on Dyke' test (see above), all the guns were under trees in light or heavy forest terrain, sometimes in and sometimes out of foxholes, and they were still spotted immediately and the first tank shot usually suppressed them sufficiently for them to be knocked out within about 60 secs. Occasionally the gun got off a shot before its destruction and even more rarely it actually killed a tank!

[Killkess]

Besides other things exactly this issue was one of 2 main reasons for me to stop playing a long time ago. I watched over and over again tanks spotting ATGs easily in good concealment and killing them on the move while driving cross country at high speeds.

Or even if the ATG succeds in getting of the first shot, they to often loose to the response.

[womble]

What Womble said. I was in a quick battle against a human (well, more or less) opponent and I bought like six 57mm to set up inside a village that had some trees clumped here and there. So I put the guns in the clumps, set "hide" and waited for the panzers. Lo an behold and every one of those guns gets mortared or MGed to death. Post-battle I find my opponent's scouts spotted them, usually at ranges of 500 meters or so. We thought about that a bit, and realized the engine had created a village that was essentially a golfing green with some buildings and trees planted in it.

Yup. Trees is trees. They's what you sees. Sorta. So they provide solid, but unreliable, sight line breaks from things that are higher than you, but not from things that are on the same level.

Concealment offered depends on

• the terrain tile type;
  
• the quantity of foliage intersecting the putatuve sight lines;
  
• building type;
  
• what kind of linear obstacle is between shooter and target.
  

and probably some other stuff.

It's not like CM1 where is the unit is on "hide" the game engine sort of assumes the unit has sought out the best hidey-spot in the 40 meter square it's in, and gives it an initial camoflage bump. In CM2, either it's good concealment or not.

Nope, you're right, it's not like x1 The game assumes the unit has sought out the best hidey spot in the 8m square it's in (wrt the direction it's facing) plus (AIUI) gives it a camo bump if it's an ATG that's not moved since setup. Hide in x2 is mostly an instruction to stay prone, which can help maintain concealment, but every unit on the table is assumed to be seeking microcover.

[Killkess]

...but every unit on the table is assumed to be seeking microcover.

Is that the explanation for the "i should stay hidden but i prefer to crawl for hours"-syndrom?

[Georgie]

BF is probably testing enhanced tank spotting so that it can be used in a futuristic game called, let me see, Shock Force?

[Steiner14]

Let's face it. ATGs simply don't work. Their behaviour can't even be called a bad model. :mad:

[Georgie]

They work very well at long distance, 1200m or so, if they are under cover. It takes them a few rounds to get on target but they will even hit a moving tank. Try, here we go a plug, The Hinterland it is a huge scenario and there are some opening shots of 1200m to 1400m on the south side of the map during the first four or five moves. Thats not too much of a spoiler.

[YankeeDog]

There may well be areas if the game regarding AT guns that need adjusting; I can't really say for sure because I haven't done any real testing in this area myself. But game engine deficiencies or no, I certainly have had some pretty brilliant successes with AT Guns as things are now, so if you place them well, they're definitely not worthless.

Granted, most of my play is against the AI, and the computer player is a poor shadow of a human opponent. But I'd estimate I average something over 2 tanks, plus half a dozen or more infantry casualties per AT Gun (assuming a reasonable matchup, like 57mm vs. PzIV, or Sherman vs. PaK40). I consider this to be pretty good performance from a static defensive asset.

[poesel]

@YD: you really should play more against humans. Any IDed ATG will be killed by mortars or tank fire immediately. They should really be a bit(!) harder to see. Especially since a human can always find a good approximation of the position by listening where the shot came from.

What IMHO limits them the most is the - since demo days - bemoaned inability for the crew to re-man the gun.

[dieseltaylor]

They work very well at long distance, 1200m or so, if they are under cover. It takes them a few rounds to get on target but they will even hit a moving tank. Try, here we go a plug, The Hinterland it is a huge scenario and there are some opening shots of 1200m to 1400m on the south side of the map during the first four or five moves. Thats not too much of a spoiler.

Though it may work in that CMBN scenario in general the idea of ATG's opening fire at that sort of range is unlikely in Normandy WW2. The WO tests show that with the UK ATG's that hits let alone kills at that range would be very unlikely. German results might be marginally better with hits and kills but the chances of being spotted and nailed would be high given the chancy nature of a kill.

In the Hinterland scenario you mention it would appear that the accuracy issue is handled. The 17pdr had a 20% chance of a first round hit at 1500yards on a static hull-up MkVI so that is not a great incentive to reveal your position. However subsequent shot would be 80% chance so a bit of a dilemma. German 75mm ATG's might have reservations about their chances of a kill at that sort of range - depending on the tank and the angle.

"Comments and corrections

These values are those plotted on the graphs in the report; the value marked (e) is interpolated from other data points. The overall shape of the fitted curves in each case is sinusoidal.

This report recommends that the maximum range of engagement for 6-pdr and 17-pdr ATk guns be considered 800 and 1000 yards respectively. The criteria stated for maximum range of engagement for a statically-sited ATk gun are:

50% chance of first-round hit on a static hull-up target;

90% chance of subsequent rounds hitting a static hull-up target;

50% hits on a hull-up direct-crossing target moving at 15 mph after MPI roughly corrected;

50% hits on a static hull-down target after MPI roughly corrected.

The first table clearly shows that errors in range have a much more important effect on accuracy than errors in line.

Penetration ranges against Pz VI for each gun (ammunition not specified) are stated as being 800 yards for 6-pdr on the front, 1600 yards on the side, and 2000–2500 yards for 17-pdr. Hit probability is therefore regarded as a more important limitation on maximum engagement range than penetration.

[YankeeDog]

@YD: you really should play more against humans.

Unfortunately, not really an option given my erratic schedule; I don't feel it's fair to ask a human opponent to put games on hold for weeks at a time and unfortunately this is what my work schedule does require at times -- I usually don't have much foreknowledge of, or control over, when.

But back in CMx1 days, my schedule did allow for more play against Human opponents and I completely agree with the general point that playing against humans is a whole different animal.

[Sublime]

Steiner - once again another assnine post from the neo nazi.

ATGs are not broken at all. yes, the camoflauge could be improved a little or something.

however I use them effectively all the time, and against skilled opponents. I've noticed all too often that people think just because they have encyclopedic knowledge of history that'll make them good at playing CMBN. Nope. It helps though. Or people who rocked at CMx1, or some other game expect the same. Nope. In fact many of the people who think things are broken because of highly subjective personal experiences would do better to play more and improve their skill, than spend all their time flaming a game they hardly even play.

[George MC]

Steiner - once again another assnine post from the neo nazi.

ATGs are not broken at all. yes, the camoflauge could be improved a little or something.

however I use them effectively all the time, and against skilled opponents. I've noticed all too often that people think just because they have encyclopedic knowledge of history that'll make them good at playing CMBN. Nope. It helps though. Or people who rocked at CMx1, or some other game expect the same. Nope. In fact many of the people who think things are broken because of highly subjective personal experiences would do better to play more and improve their skill, than spend all their time flaming a game they hardly even play.

Amen Bro

[sburke]

Steiner - once again another assnine post from the neo nazi.

ATGs are not broken at all. yes, the camoflauge could be improved a little or something.

however I use them effectively all the time, and against skilled opponents. I've noticed all too often that people think just because they have encyclopedic knowledge of history that'll make them good at playing CMBN. Nope. It helps though. Or people who rocked at CMx1, or some other game expect the same. Nope. In fact many of the people who think things are broken because of highly subjective personal experiences would do better to play more and improve their skill, than spend all their time flaming a game they hardly even play.

+1 My first pbem against broadsword featured a 50mm ATG that almost singlehandedly owned the center of the map until it ran out of ammo - against MG, tank and mortar fire. Also recently played JonS in Shadow of the hill and though he was eventually able to take out one ATG with a massive barrage, the second held out till the end and played a key role in holding my left flank. I do have to credit placement of that gun to the scenario designer however. Note the designer also created a map with depth to allow the gun to function as it was intended, not trying to remain hidden while firing at 200m.

This strikes me as similar to the complaints about AT teams which Broadsword probably wishes were true as my shrek gunners continue to perform extremely well. I have seen more than a couple posts about folks using around 150m as their outer limit. For me that is well within my comfort zone.

[JonS]

eventually

"Eventually" in this case was at least 30 mins after the gun opened fire, and at the cost of four or five Churchills, and 30 mins of heavily constrained freedom of manoeuvre

Guns can "work" in CM, but they don't always work. And neither should they. IIRC (JasonC?) the average number of kills per a-tk gun in WWII was less than one. That is; on average an a-tk gun would expect to be destroyed before it killed anything.

Just like using Shermans or Tigers or tank destroyers or infantry, there are particular situations that suit guns, and particular skill sets that the player has to have in order to bring out their best. It's rather arrogant to claim that CM is broken simply because you can't get effective use out of them.