Allow AT guns to be remanned.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The US rockets are the only ones that are cheap. So yeah, that's the main problem. But I think the German rockets are also too expensive. They are the most expensive artillery the Germans have. I seriously doubt they are the most effective German artillery type. On a per-round basis US rockets are less effective than 81mm mortars, just not nearly enough to justify their incredibly low price (I have tested this). German rockets are literally about 10x more expensive than US rockets despite being on paper slightly inferior.

[WynnterGreen]

So if they ever get to the position of allowing us to re-crew A/T guns, I would expect a time penalty to be incurred to cover this........

I've got no problem with that at all.....

If a tank can lose its optics I don't see why an AT gun cant be damaged somehow, or knocked out completely while the crew scatter to find cover.

I'd be happy to see a unit re-crewing the gun have to run through 50% of the weapons 'unpacking' time as a measure of checking it over.

But it's patently ridiculous that the gunners are tethered to their gun, unable to return to it if they take any action to preserve themselves.

The real problem is that they're largely unusable and a bad choice as they are.

[John Kettler]

TrailApe,

While your points are well taken, it can also happen that, particularly when the gun is in the vale and the enemy's on the high hill, that the crew can be engaged by MG fire and not do anything to the gun. All that has to happen is momentary morale collapse while under fire to cause a fatal and permanent abandonment of a perfectly good gun. The same thing can happen to a gun engaged from the flank while pointed some other direction. Again, the crew took the lumps, not the gun. Again, the gun was abandoned.

If AFV crews can be forced out of their armored beasts by any number of mechanisms, yet remount subsequently, guns should be able to recrew. The inability to roll back guns, as opposed to having to about face them, is insane, too.

Additionally, I would say that the Russians did indeed practice the one man on the antitank gun rule, following heavy early war losses, and that when dug in, the Germans often had shelters for the crews of larger weapons, weapons that were crewed after the bombardment lifted. This is flatly impossible under the current model. Nor am I sure how we'd model the ramp equipped gun shelters also used by the Germans. In these, the gun and crew were below ground level then brought the weapon up the ramp and into firing position.

I believe investigation will reveal that taking the most critical mechanism, the gun sight, off the weapon and with the crew when expecting bombardment was fairly common. While there are indeed hits which can take a gun out without mangling it, I've read plenty of accounts in which damaged guns were fought for hours until failing completely. This is true for both tank weapons and towed ones.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Paper Tiger]

But it's patently ridiculous that the gunners are tethered to their gun,

The first part, I agree with. It was riducilous that you couldn't abandon a gun at all without it being destroyed first. That's why we got this feature.

unable to return to it if they take any action to preserve themselves.

I don't know how big a coding issue this is. There might be some reluctance on BFCs part to implement something like this because they wouldn't want us swapping our duff crews for the very best ones much like we can't re-man an abandoned, but functioning, tank with another crew.

If you want the crew to survive, why don't you just place your AT gun in a foxhole? The crew benefit from the foxhole's protection. They hunker down in it when they're under fire and they pop back up to fire the gun when they're in better shape. The sandbag wall also helps with survivability as well but not so much with artillery.

[WynnterGreen]

I don't know how big a coding issue this is.

I don't know about the coding issues either. But if it can be done for a tank, it can be done for an AT gun.

And, in my opinion, currently AT guns are a largely unusable game asset because of a vulnerability largely caused by the inability to de-crew / re-crew.

I completely accept that BF would like and possibly have plans for a better system for AT weapons.

I'm merely voicing my opinion as to what seems like the most rational way to begin addressing the flaw.

There might be some reluctance on BFCs part to implement something like this because they wouldn't want us swapping our duff crews for the very best ones much like we can't re-man an abandoned, but functioning, tank with another crew.

So, no swapping crews for AT guns either......

If you want the crew to survive, why don't you just place your AT gun in a foxhole?

Because you can't move the foxhole?

Because putting infantry into foxholes wouldn't be accepted as a 'fix' for having infantry that can't move out of the way when you know an arty barrage is imminently going to hit the action spot they occupy.

Because, the problem is that AT guns are WAY to vulnerable because the gunners are tethered to the gun, not because they shouldn't die when arty lands on them.

[Paper Tiger]

I don't know about the coding issues either. But if it can be done for a tank, it can be done for an AT gun.

It can be done for a vehicle crew but AT guns are not vehicles as they can be towed. So it's not quite as simple as that.

I'm merely voicing my opinion as to what seems like the most rational way to begin addressing the flaw.

For some of us, the flaw was the crew could not be separated from their gun at all before their gun was destroyed. We've got a solution that doesn't go as far as writing a whole scree of new code and for that, I'm grateful at least.

[John Kettler]

Paper Tiger,

I neglected to point out there are scenarios and battles, going clear back to the CMBN Demo, in which the guns are present, but no foxholes are provided. Rather difficult to put a gun in a foxhole when there are none! Craters can be an option, but I've found they're not all that useful if the enemy occupies dominating terrain.

Returning for a moment to the removing the gunsight issue, this was portrayed in the David Niven wartime film "The Immortal Battalion." In this film, as I recall, shell fire forces the 6-pdr gun crew he commands into a building, but before that, at Niven's orders, they take the sight off the gun and dash for cover (dead gun under CMx2). When the fire lifts, they scurry out, reinstall the sight, and begin a desperate fight against Rommel's armor (flatly impossible under CMx2).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_Ahead

Since this WAS a wartime film and doubtless had military advisors making sure everything was correctly portrayed except where classified, I think we take it as a given that the British Army and procedures were accurately portrayed, a contention fully supported by the first review here--in which we learn, via the wife of a former para, that it was extensively used as an official training film!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037449/

Regards,

John Kettler

[Paper Tiger]

Oh, it's definitely realistic, that's for sure. But coding this behaviour into the game isn't quite as simple as that. And yes, if the mission doesn't give you a foxhole...

[Baneman]

Tiger tank front turret armor issue. *ahem*

mortar smoke ammo issue

Lynx missing from QBs

US M4A1 and M21 mortar halftracks missing from QBs

King Tiger, Lynx and Wespe models (although I wonder if these may be done with the 2.0 upgrade).

Ridiculous QB unit prices for US and German rocket artillery (probably wont be fixed, but should be)

I remembered another - guns area firing HEAT ammo.

[Baneman]

It would also be nice if they could fix the oversteer problem, but I imagine that one is deep in the vehicle code

It's annoying though, when you're moving in an urban environment.

It takes long enough to manoeuver through the narrow streets without the vehicles adding more rotation time to the already slow process of making tight turns.

[Wicky]

Try using 'slow' when negotiating corners/turns in the absence of handbrake turns...

It would also be nice if they could fix the oversteer problem, but I imagine that one is deep in the vehicle code

It's annoying though, when you're moving in an urban environment.

It takes long enough to manoeuver through the narrow streets without the vehicles adding more rotation time to the already slow process of making tight turns.

[dieseltaylor]

Armoured cars with two drivers and positions not able to drive at full speed in either direction

[Baneman]

Try using 'slow' when negotiating corners/turns in the absence of handbrake turns...

I do, the problem is, for example, the vehicle having to make a 90 degree turn in a town. But after making the 90 degree turn, the vehicle decides to continue to turn for another 30 degrees worth, then "suddenly remembers" that you actually didn't tell it to do that, then it turns back and now it moves down the road.

Unfortunately, the extra 30 degrees each way chews up time that you can usually ill afford, especially if something behind it is waiting for it to clear the intersection. So the time it takes to complete a 90 degree turn is actually the time it takes to do a 150 degree turn

Frustratingly, it doesn't always do this extra turning, just sometimes - and often on "slow", but not on "Quick".

[sburke]

I do, the problem is, for example, the vehicle having to make a 90 degree turn in a town. But after making the 90 degree turn, the vehicle decides to continue to turn for another 30 degrees worth, then "suddenly remembers" that you actually didn't tell it to do that, then it turns back and now it moves down the road.

Unfortunately, the extra 30 degrees each way chews up time that you can usually ill afford, especially if something behind it is waiting for it to clear the intersection. So the time it takes to complete a 90 degree turn is actually the time it takes to do a 150 degree turn

Frustratingly, it doesn't always do this extra turning, just sometimes - and often on "slow", but not on "Quick".

That behavior MIGHT have to do with where you are putting the next waypoint of the turn. Just a guess, but worth a look and perhaps you can try moving the waypoint further away.

[Erwin]

John: I had a fit some months ago when I put an AT gun in foxholes and they did nothing to protect the gun. I was advised that one needs to have a gun something like 1.5 action squares inside the edge of trees to get good cover/concealment. This sort of stuff bothers me as it's completely counterintuitive. However, one good suggestion I received was plot a waypoint outside the trees and the you can see how far into the trees an enemy can see.