Turn rate for a 7,6cm Pak 36(r)

[winkelried]

With the current ATG models, I can't imagine that in CM even the luckiest player can achieve that many kills with one gun:

yes you can consitently. but you need to stick to some rules:

1. As Sgt Schulz put it earlier - "Keyhole or die". Limit the area of fire to avoid the get return fire from a large front.
   
2. A single ATG is no ATG. Use them at least in pairs - even better create Pakfronts. With this you increase the hit probability and your survival rate in a rich target environment.
   
3. Use the ATG in flanking positions whenever possible. You have a larger (compare the front view to a side view of a tank) and softer target area in front of you. And win a few seconds until the enemy has turned his turret(s).
   
4. ATG are ambush weapons, they can not survive a duel. They have to emplaced accordingly. Be aware that when you fire your cover is blown and the ATG will be fired at with whatever the enemy has. So choose your first shot wisely.
   
5. ATG need support: at least some infantry to provide protection against enemy infantry. Artillery helps too - especially something that gets smoke into the area to provide a screen if there is too much firepower on the opposing side.
   

All those rules are basically about getting superior firepower into the kill zone. That is to say to have more guns firing than tanks you are firing at.

Stick to these rules you can get pretty good results with ATGs - at least I do

[Steiner14]

yes you can consitently.

...

Stick to these rules you can get pretty good results with ATGs - at least I do

Show me. Sorry, but I don't believe you a word. I'm not a CM noob and have never been able to achieve similar results with ATGs in CM. I'm not talking about playing the stupid AI.

ATGs in CM are undermodelled in many aspects. My picture should have been more understood as argument, how less dangerous they are in CM than in RL. A 88 firing at 1km+ meant a kill with the first shot and with almost 100% probability if the tank moved in radial direction to the gun. In CM when tanks fire back, they immediately have their HE impacts close enough to suppress ATGs. In reality they were already dead at their second shot before they could even get the range somehow correct when they were facing a 88.

The ROF of the 88 is too low, the turning rates of ATGs are generally too low. They aren't dug in, and stand hugely exposed, even camouflaged ones are not practically invisible until they open fire. The movement of up to the 50mm calibres are way too slow and they can't be pushed back quickly without turning around half a minute and then walking around.

[winkelried]

circa 41-42 the 88 was a super gun in that time frame and the large amount of kill rings wouldn't surprise me too much. Same with an early Desert War picture.

in addition you don't know what stood on the receiving end. e.g. some BT-7 or T-26 might be in the count

I doubt ATGs were racking up that many kills later in the war, besides the once in a blue moon Villers Bocage exception.

there are some interesting fights against ATGs in the battle of the bulge (e.g. the U.S. defense of Stoumont) or in operation Nordwind (e.g. PaK 43 and PaK 40 at Herrlisheim) which show that, when properly deployed, ATGs can wreak quite some havoc even late in the war.

[winkelried]

Show me. Sorry, but I don't believe you a word. I'm not a CM noob and have never been able to achieve similar results with ATGs in CM. I'm not talking about playing the stupid AI.

me neither only talking about PBEM. Some regulars on the forum can tell ...

ATGs in CM are undermodelled in many aspects.

maybe

My picture should have been more understood as argument, how less dangerous they are in CM than in RL. A 88 firing at 1km+ meant a kill with the first shot and with almost 100% probability if the tank moved in radial direction to the gun.

Probably you should read: JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics (ISBN 0-7643-0225-6) then you wouldn't write such crap. The Germans (!!!) calculated (based on their experience) that the 88 L/56 had a 100% hit probabilty up to 1000m with the Pz.Gr. 39 under training conditions. With other ammo and under battle conditions this first hit probability dropped down to between 62% to 93%. Above 1000 meters (again under battle conditions) first shot hit rates dropped steeply to 74%@1500m, 50%@2000m, 31%@2000m etc - and that's again Pz.Gr. 39. Other ammo dropped down to 20%.

In CM when tanks fire back, they immediately have their HE impacts close enough to suppress ATGs. In reality they were already dead at their second shot before they could even get the range somehow correct when they were facing a 88.

See my comment above.

The movement of up to the 50mm calibres are way too slow and they can't be pushed back quickly without turning around half a minute and then walking around.

When you need to move an ATG under battle conditions you're cooked anyway. Show me a RL battle (with proper sources) where this has been done successfully. BTW there was a reason why the Germans built all the Marders, Nashorns etc. It is called mobility and HE protection (at least against close hits) ...

[Steiner14]

Stellungswechsel for PAKs was common tactics!

[winkelried]

Stellungswechsel for PAKs was common tactics!

during a lull sure, but not under fire. as I said show me RL examples (not Wochenschau propaganda ) and I will believe you ... I know none.

even in well prepared positions ATGs were left in their firing position during the artillery fire 'cause there was no way to bring them from a cover back there after the artillery firing ceased until the targets arrived on the position - and here (and only here now) I agree with you that ATGs are undermodelled in CM. We can't keep the crew in cover and get them to man the gun as soon as the artillery has ceased firing.

[sburke]

With the current ATG models, I can't imagine that in CM even the luckiest player can achieve that many kills with one gun:

Would make an interesting test if the hit probability of the 88 is better than other guns.

umm maybe because once your battle is over the gun disappears into the virtual world and next time you purchase one it is fresh from the factory with a crew just born and raized in the Azi tanks? Seriously you think that crew had that many kills in one battle in a CM time frame...and no other ones or maybe they just started on the job and are painting them as they go?

[Erwin]

The 88mm in the photo probably had the good fortune to be shooting on a larger map than a typical CM2 map - ie shooting at ranges of 2Km+.

[JonS]

Also, claims != kills

[Sublime]

Winkelried I need to email you, Im sorry Ive just been insanely busy with school. And our Richter battle my comp is having trouble handling, its so big it causes crashes often =(

We can continue, (or try in Richter's case) soon I promise.

Oh and Steiner, I've played Winkelried for 2 years now, he's done some insane damage with ATGs in CM. I always play Axis, him Allied. In the Mace scenario, he destroyed my entire armored force with his 6 lbers... very skillful.

[winkelried]

Winkelried I need to email you, Im sorry Ive just been insanely busy with school. And our Richter battle my comp is having trouble handling, its so big it causes crashes often =(

We can continue, (or try in Richter's case) soon I promise.

Oh and Steiner, I've played Winkelried for 2 years now, he's done some insane damage with ATGs in CM. I always play Axis, him Allied. In the Mace scenario, he destroyed my entire armored force with his 6 lbers... very skillful.

thanks for the flowers don't worry - life B is a bit more important than CMBN

[winkelried]

Also, claims != kills

and the rings look so cool on the Wochenschau ...

[Steiner14]

Also, claims != kills

and the rings look so cool on the Wochenschau ...

Only two words: six weeks.

Get over it. Learn to accept they were the best.

[JonS]

best

At logistics?

At intelligence?

At naval warfare?

At aerial warfare?

At strategic planning?

At maintaining their honour and integrity?

At the only thing that ultimately matters; keeping their country free from foreign invaders?

edit: 'were'? Past tense? Heh. That says it all, really. It's a bit like trying to talk up Iraq, in 1991, when they went from being the fouth largest army in the world to having the second largest army in Iraq.

[poesel]

At logistics?

At intelligence?

At naval warfare?

At aerial warfare?

At strategic planning?

At maintaining their honour and integrity?

At the only thing that ultimately matters; keeping their country free from foreign invaders?

at propaganda

[JonS]

at propaganda

Ah, right. Touché.

[Steiner14]

JonS,

do you have any idea, why boxers are judged in fights of one on one and not 2, 3 or 10 against 1?

The losses of British and American units were around 50% higher than German units under comparable conditions. No matter if under attack and defense.

But a look at production figures and resources also helps to get rid of your absurd, hollywoodlike propaganda views (poesel71, since you are a propaganda expert, have you noticed in the meanwhile, why the Euro is a misconception and will not survive?).

Then a look at a map also helps to understand what the german soldier had to cope with and that it is unreached what he achieved.

But following you "experts" I guess the reason why allied WWII field commanders always ranked the german soldier the best of all participating parties was simply a result of german propaganda and YOU are the well informed while I was the one who believes in propaganda...

ps: did you know that 85% of NYC high school absolvents aren't capable of reading? I'm sure they will support your views...

[JonS]

do you have any idea, why boxers are judged in fights of one on one and not 2, 3 or 10 against 1?

Picking a fight with the entire rest of the world was an unforced error - it wasn't the US who declared war on Germany, nor Russia that tore up the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union. Besides, starting wars of aggression isn't an event at the Olympics. You either win, or you're a loser. Your team were losers. Repeatedly.

They were losers because they utterly sucked at logistics, intelligence, naval warfare, aerial warfare, and strategic planning. They were terrible at coalition warfare too. Compared to that catalogue of military idiocy, talking about some mythical "better soldier" (tell us again how great the 70th Infantry Division was, or any of the Ost battalions) is about as meaningful as bickering about who had the best bayonet.

But as poesel quite rightly pointed out: they were world class at propaganda. We know that because it still works on some folk.

The losses of British and American units were around 50% higher than German units under comparable conditions. No matter if under attack and defense.

Bull.

****.

[Steiner14]

Wars of aggression aren't an event at the Olympics. You either win, or you're a loser. Your team were losers. Repeatedly.

You are mixing your political and historical judgements with military aspects.

Your ideological views obviously deny you to observe things objectively.

For the soldier in the field politics plays no role and for judging his fighting power it also plays no role.

You don't even understand, that not always the best soldier wins a war.

They were losers because they utterly sucked at logistics, intelligence, naval warfare, aerial warfare, and strategic planning. They were terrible at coalition warfare too.

Again you are confusing things and are not talking about fighting power.

A boxer that is beaten down by ten other boxers does not suck.

The FACTS speak for itself: Six weeks for France. Four weeks for Poland. Balkan. Norway. Then take a look at a map of Russia. Even the Soviet-Union would have been finished, too without the US lend and lease deliveries, that alone was more than the whole german wartime production! Yes they obviously sucked.

Then look at a globe. Look at the size of Germany and the size of the USSR, the USA, Canada, the UK and the occupied colonies!

Look at the hard facts, the production figures.

This all was thrown at the German soldier he had to face in the field.

It was a MIRACLE what the german soldier achieved, that he could withstand that long such overwhelming numbers and an even greater miracle was, that the victory was several times in the reach.

The german soldier sucked but YOU, YOU do not suck, correct? You can be glad that stupidity does not hurt otherwise you would be running around crying all day.

But as poesel quite rightly pointed out: they were world class at propaganda. Look. See? It still works on some folk.

I can't see a difference between the propaganda the tens of thousands of western TV stations are spreading and what you and poesel71 are repeating here.

A study written for the US army, after the desaster of the Vietnam war and a must read for everyone interested in the topic:

Martin van Creveld: Fighting Power (available in German, too: Deutsche Kampfkraft)

[JonS]

You are mixing your political and historical judgements with military aspects.

No I am not. The main task of any military is to ensure the survival of the nation. The German military has failed at that single most important task. Repeatedly.

Again you are ... are not talking about fighting power.

Of course I am. Logistics is a component of fighting power. So is intelligence. And so are the others. You can't just ignore the most important aspects of military art, or pretend they aren't relevant, because your team sucked at them.

The FACTS speak for itself: Six weeks for France. Four weeks for Poland. Balkan. Norway.

Uranus. Bagration. Lvov-Sandomierz. Tunisia. Falaise. Ardennes.

Then take a look at a map of Russia.

Rofl. Why tell me? Shouldn't someone have suggested that to Paulus when he was drafting the plans?

Even the Soviet-Union would have been finished, too without the US lend and lease deliveries

Bull****, once again. The Russians had already defeated Barbarossa before the US was in the war, and before the British shipments had amounted to much.

that alone was more than the whole german wartime production!

Unforced error.

Then look at a globe. Look at the size of Germany and the size of the USSR, the USA, Canada, the UK and the occupied colonies!

Look at the hard facts, the production figures.

Yes. Look at it. Unforced error.

This all was thrown at the German soldier he had to face in the field.

It wasn't thrown, he pulled it down onto himself. Unforced error.

It was a MIRACLE what the german soldier achieved, that he could withstand that long such overwhelming numbers and an even greater miracle was, that the victory was several times in the reach.

A MIRACLE, you say? Oh, well, ok. As long as we agree it had nothing to do with skill.

[Vanir Ausf B]

A study written for the US army, after the desaster of the Vietnam war and a must read for everyone interested in the topic:

Martin van Creveld: Fighting Power (available in German, too: Deutsche Kampfkraft)

It's on my list. But so is the more recently written Closing With the Enemy: How GIs Fought the War in Europe, 1944-1945 by Michael D. Doubler

[Macisle]

When this topic comes up and some of the community heavyweights get in on it, it's always...

POPCORN TIME!

[Sublime]

Yeah steiner thats all bull. What about the German brilliance at Stalingrad or Kursk?

The early war victories were as much about complacency on the Western Allies part as German success.

I'd like to add that you guys dragged the whole world onto yourselves in WW1 too, with similar results. Like JonS says, war is not boxing, and you cant isolate certain aspects of warfare to prove your point while ignoring other parts. In actuality the Germans placed extreme premiums on certain things while almost ignoring others. I believe this attests to their capabilities in some areas while failures in others. I could however point out that the Allies mastered everything they put their mind to, and even things that are often perceived as 'failures' (like Sherman tanks vs Tigers) were actually a choice on production and strategy. I think the West chose right too, as Hitler is buried under a German housing project in East Germany somewhere, and the rest that we got at Nuremburg were unceremoniously thrown in a ditch or river somewhere. In fact, a large reason why you're sitting in a Germany thats properous and industrialized, on the internet, safe, is BECAUSE the Western powers. It's BECAUSE the British and US that Germany wasn't completely overrun by the Soviets for YOUR mistake. Its US and Brit GENEROSITY that not only allowed Germany to rebuild and EVEN BECOME A COUNTRY AGAIN, but to HELP ITS FORMER ENEMY rebuild. I doubt the Nazi's would EVER have been so honorable and gracious to any enemy, let alone say Poles or Russians.

And speaking of propaganda I love how you're spouting off information about students in NYC. How many times have you been? Because that statistic is pure bull****, claiming 75% of any part of the US population, except 3 year olds, cant read, is nonsense. However I CAN direct you to the general forum where theres a thread on a North Korean video that I'm sure you'd love. Its replete with the pure fantasy that your world is full of.

[winkelried]

Only two words: six weeks.

Get over it. Learn to accept they were the best.

BTW there is a good mini-series going on on German TV "Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter" - maybe you should have a look at it ... some of the critics call it the "German version of Band of Brothers" ...

[winkelried]

Then a look at a map also helps to understand what the german soldier had to cope with and that it is unreached what he achieved.

i think you are talking about war crimes too? there indeed they were (almost) unreached.