Guest kip anderson Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Steve, anti-tank guns are very specialised weapons and to be realistically used in CM a number of features have to be included in the game.At the start I should say that I don't feel that anti-tank guns are vital to the first version of CM, especially as it will be a western front game.However when MC moves to the eastern front having full feature anti-tank guns will be important as they played the major part in Soviet anti-armour tactics. In my view the features that need to be there to accurately portray anti-tank guns are, the ability to hook and unhook guns to and from trucks and halftracks. The ability to camouflage guns so they are spotted at a shorter distance than would otherwise have been the case. The ability of the guns to fire at a higher rate than similar tank guns, if unsuppressed. The ability of the crew to push or wheel the guns short distances, even if only slowly. Thanks for your time , all the best Kip. ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 "I don't feel that anti-tank guns are vital to the first version of CM" Are you kidding? No vaunted 88's? Both sides used AT guns all over the Western Theater. The Germans had more horse-propelled guns than self-propelled guns, if nothing else. The thread "No AT guns?" states that AT guns should definitely be in this release. I don't know about all the mechanics that you cover, but at least they will be in there to some degree. I'd sure love to see a screenshot of some AT guns. I hadn't even thought of it 'til this thread, but I don't recall seeing them anywhere in the existing shots. Dar Steckelberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Kip, we wouldn't release CM if it didn't have AT guns simply because we would be laughed off the 'net for any claims of realism AT guns were a VITAL part of both side's weapons. Entire battalions were held up, and slammed hard, by AT guns without friendly tank support even. To not have AT guns would be, simply put, unthinkable for ANY release. Having said that... all AT guns have been in CM for about 6 months now. Haven't shown them in action though. I purposefully didn't put them into Martin and Fionn's game as I felt they didn't fit the battle I created (both sides on the move). As for how they are simulated... I would answer you point for point but EVERYTHING is already in there. RoF for AT guns, BTW, is certainly different than similar guns in tanks. It is also affected by enemy fire much more than a tank. Pushing is something that can be done to a limited extent depending on gun, terrain, and weather. For example, a US 37mm AT is light and agile, but Pak 43 towed 88AT ain't moving NOWHERE Dar, yes, I think I will stick an AT gun in the next round of shots. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Showing my ignorance here but; why do AT guns fire faster than similar tank guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Id say because of the less cramped conditions than what you find inside an amroured vehicle. With an AT gun ammo would be easier to get to, more people are available to help load etc, and its easier to load and reload etc...just my guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Tanks and all tank-related matters are my particular fascination and I'm glad to say CM features some anti-tank guns never before modelled anywhere else... And they work very well. Anti-tank guns WILL get off the first round and they WILL kill you if you sit still to duel it out with them (unless they're massively outnumbered of course). ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 I don't have any figures in front of me, but KwazyDog has hit on a few good ones. Not cramped, ammo is easure to reach (in theory), more men dedicated to the gun (5 or 6 as opposed to 3), and not moving. Some guns even had different breeches between towed and turreted versions (might make RoF better or worse, dunno). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 The 88 L/56 was actually rotated 90 degrees to the left in order to be placed in the Tiger's turret. (at least that's what I seem to remember reading) Thus loading it was more difficult, the breech etc were difficult to operate and it just was placed weird. Putting a big gun in a small turret means not having lots of space and consequent slow reloading etc.. Also the point regarding ease of access to shells is very true. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 I've seen pictures of the Tiger's turret (they're in every tank book; TigerII and such heavies I've not seen) and the breech of the gun is within a foot of dividing the turret fighting compartment in half. It must be hell to have to work around that thing. Anybody know how much the breech/recoil damper of the M1 intrudes into the turret? I can think of another reason that might explain why AT guns, at least the biggies like the 88 and 75, fired faster; they were more stable, maybe, than turret mounts. This meant that less time would be needed to correct aim from a miss. In a tank, I'll bet that firing the gun messes up the gunlaying somewhat more than happens to something like the 88. The reason I believe this is that the 88, at least, started life as an AA gun and was designed to fire very fast at set aimpoints; the gun needed to be able to maintain that aim point even after many rounds were fired. I could be wrong about this. Makes sense to me, tho. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 There are a couple of screenshots of AT guns at the cdmag review. You can find a link to it in the reviews section over in the CM portion of this site. Dunno how out of date those shots are though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Ben: Thanks for the pointer! I did find that one of the German PaK getting nailed. Looks pretty cool! Dar Steckelberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 4, 1999 Share Posted September 4, 1999 To take this out of WWII context for a sec... the Soviet "frying pan" style of turret was really bad on the crew. Not only did it make things more cramped, and reduce the ammo supply in some tanks, but it also was quite dangerous. I have read that in some models, like the T-72 IIRC, the loader could litterally be crushed between the breech and the back of the turret if he didn't get out of the way in time. Still, as Charles would tell 'ya, I would love to have one of those T-72s as a "toy". Real life I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them, but in my backyard? You bet! I know of one guy that has a T34, T54, T62, T72, and a JS3 Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted September 4, 1999 Share Posted September 4, 1999 Hee, hee, hee... As a post script to that, I remember reading that the hydraulic fluid in those tanks (T-55/64/72, I believe) was alcohol-based and drinkable. If you drank it all, I wonder if you were stuck to rotating the turret by hand? Dar Steckelberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 4, 1999 Share Posted September 4, 1999 In the MiG-25 it was alcohol-based and drinkable too and Belyenko (the MiG 25 pilot who defected to Japan ... I have his book somewhere in this room ) related how he always checked the hydraulic fluid pressures and volumes himself to ensure that his crew chief and mechanics didn't "warm themselves" during maintenance using his hydraulic fluid. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted September 4, 1999 Share Posted September 4, 1999 Um, in the interest of picking a nit..... Teh T-72 didn't have a (human) loader. It had an incredibly reliable auto loader that not only reduced the rate of fire, it reuced the number of crewman available for maintaining the tank. It was this wonderful of equipment that would attempt to load the gunner into the breach on occasion. There was hatch in the back of the turret to automatically eject spent case stubs, and when this was not properly aligned the case coulc ricochet in the turret potentially injuring the gunner or commander. And picking another nit, IIRC the breech on the Tiger's 88 was the same kind that was on the 75mm L43 and 48 tank guns. The breech opened at the top where as most AT guns opened at the side. This may have given rise to the idea the the 88 was rotated to fit in the tank. The breech of the 7.5cm L/24 is this way as well. Since this gun was puposely designed for the tank it would seem that the top opening breech was fairly standard. The M1 and M1A1 are this way too. The loader hand is pushed up by the sliding block as it closes. And a note on higher ROF for AT Guns. The previous posts covered the main points. The access to ammunition is key. In US tanks it is common practice, though officially discouraged, for the loader to hold a round ready for faster reload. It is discouraged because the ammo in the M1 series is protected behind blast doors and a penetration of the fighting compartment will not normally result in a catastrophic kill because the ammo will explode through the roof and not into the crew area. If the loader is holding around when the tank is penetrated it greatly increases the chances that there will be a detonation in the turret killing 3 of 4 crewmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 4, 1999 Share Posted September 4, 1999 Ah! Thanks for the autoloader info! It all makes quite a lot of sense. Kicking a big, hot casing out of the gun must be pretty damned hard on the head if that is where it goes And as far as the M1 goes... what are the chances of a turret penetration vs. the benefit of having another round handy? I would think FIRMLY in the "another round handy" camp. I'll ask our tank poster artist what he does as he is an M1 loader. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts