AT Guns: Problems and How to Solve Them?

[c3k]

Actually, JK has a point.

If the LOADER has to ACQUIRE the ammo and LOAD the gun, then he's performing double duty. If an assitant loader HANDS him the next round, then he can load more rapidly.

I have never fired an antitank gun. But I have hammered nails. If I have an assistant hand me a nail, it is faster than reaching into my nail pouch, finding one, orienting it, and bringing it to the nailing surface. With an assistant, I merely open my palm, the next (correct) nail is oriented correctly, and I'm WHAM, onto the next one.

I have also found that nailing in tight confines with debris about my feet is harder to accomplish than in an open area with no such debris.

So, pedantry aside, what atg/tank experience do you have, JasonC? You mentioned it earlier and then ignored JK's request that you expound on your statement. If it sheds light on your viewpoint, which you implied it does, then please share.

Prima facia, it seems ludicrous to state that there is no benefit to loading times for an atg vs. a tank. (A tank may be a more stable firing platform and that may lead to a higher rate of fire, but that is not the same as loading.)

This is minor compared to the other shortcomings in atg modeling, but it is interesting to me.

Thanks,

Ken

[SeinfeldRules]

Tanks have ready racks for exactly that reason. Pre fuzed, pre sorted, pre oriented. Loader swivels around, pulls the round he wants out of its slot, swivels back and loads the round, all in one motion if they are well trained. It's all part of the crew drill. The ready rack stands in as the assistant handing the round to the gunner.

A modern tank but a good example of what a trained loader is capable of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EkJ8dgHy1w

[Migo441]

JK,

Agree completely that ATG crews would be more resilient to losses (no driver or radio operator). As for the temperature/atmospheric conditions, wouldn't that be a double edged sword? In a driving rain or significant wind chill, should a tank crew have an advantage compared to an ATG crew exposed to the elements?

CK3, I don't have any experience firing a large gun enclosed or otherwise either. Would be interested to hear first hand anecdotes.

Note that the original post did NOT mention ROF among the ways that ATG were nerfed. One area we may all agree on is that the ROF question is relatively less important than other factors in terms of ATG effectiveness and survivability.

I think we are focused on how CMx2 models these guns so the question is not "Can ATG achieve a higher ROF than a similar vehicle mounted gun (under specific controlled conditions)?" but rather "Would an ATG achieve a higher enough ROF than a similar vehicle mounted gun under combat conditions such that it should be modelled?"

[WynnterGreen]

If players would have the ability to move the crews away from guns, everyone would run his gun crews hundred meters or more away.

While I can't see the benefit of being hundreds on meters from the asset, I do get what you're saying about 'gamey' effects that decrewing AT Guns might have.

And I'm not necessarily saying that allowing them to decrew IS the answer, or even necessarily part of the answer​.

I​t's just one of a combination of issues ​I initially identified​ regarding AT Guns that ​may be contributing to ​reduce their effectiveness.

In reality I think being able to move while deployed​,​ and better movement speeds and turning rates generally would ​'​probably​'​ suffice as a fix for AT Guns.

From further reading of the Towed Tank Destroyer manual, I'm even more convinced that AT Guns up to Pak40 caliber need the capability to be manhandled quickly from 'Cover Positions' into 'Firing Positions'. Or from 'Primary Firing Positions' to 'Secondary'.

​It's a shame we've got to eleven pages without any input from BattleFront.​

[John Kettler]

c3k,

Well argued. A somewhat similar case would be an LMG with a two-man crew, but operable by one man. We all know which one's going to be able to pour out fire over time, with few interruptions.

SeinfeldRules,

Ammo stowage on a tank is anything but ergonomically great and loader friendly. See marvelous collection of tank and SPG cutaways at SubSim site for proof. For example, T-34/76 ammo not in ready rack is in those boxes below the turret, accessible by lifting rubber covers (on which the loader stands) to get to the ammo once the few rounds in the ready rack are exhausted. Here's the rest of the link.

radioroom/showthread.php?t=186618

May I also recommend the excellent analysis of ammo stowage for the Tiger 1 and King Tiger presented by tommy 303 here.

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3722

Also, HE isn't pre fuzed. The fuze type has to be decided and an option set in some instances. A Sherman HE round has two fuzes. The first is SQ(super-quick) and time; the second is 0.15 sec Delay. SQ detonates immediately. Time is based on distance to the target and is used for airburst. Delay allows things like houses to be penetrated, with the shell bursting inside and can also be used for ricochet fire against...wait for it..antitank guns! See, for example, Wilson's gem of a tank book, Flamethrower. He served in Churchill Crocodiles, you see.

For info on fuzes for M48 HE fired by Shermans and others with the same gun or at least ammo compatible, go to scribd. (usual) and add this

/doc/120686484/Catalogue-of-standard-ordnance-items-Vol-3-pdf

The M48 HE info is on p. 516.

Even more fun is a T-34/76. T-34/76 not only carries HE which must have the fuze set, but also shrapnel, which has to have a time set to reflect range to the target. And the Russians often fired on the move!

My brother, George Kettler, SFC, U.S. Army, Retired after 20 years, served on Bradleys and 40mm armed Hummers and is a combat veteran. He had this to say of my argument.

"Your rate of fire argument.....well certainly a higher ROF with ample room and ventilation.

Thing is, while behind the thin shield of that AT gun or open barbette position you may shoot more rapidly AND have better visibility, you just MIGHT notice the return fire a lot more than the guy inside a tank or inside the ironclad casemate

Towed AT is lethal until suppressed and bypassed/flanked.

Indirect is great against towed AT but not so effective against tanks as they can move away and are pretty tough"

Things to ponder!

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

​It's a shame we've got to eleven pages without any input from BattleFront.​

Well it isn't like this is a new discussion and there is a version 3.0 of the engine coming. Perhaps it is best to wait and see what changes come in that once BF is prepared to discuss them. Maybe there will be changes we are unaware of, but I expect asking BF to get involved in this right now is simply bad timing. One expects they are quite busy.

[bisu]

Well it isn't like this is a new discussion and there is a version 3.0 of the engine coming. Perhaps it is best to wait and see what changes come in that once BF is prepared to discuss them. Maybe there will be changes we are unaware of, but I expect asking BF to get involved in this right now is simply bad timing. One expects they are quite busy.

Well, I think with v 3.0 approaching, now it is the BEST timing to discuss the issue which, concluding from the 11 pages, temperature of dispute, and people's posts expecting BTF input, seems not to be unimportant..

[Baneman]

...

Agree completely that ATG crews would be more resilient to losses (no driver or radio operator)

...

For me, it seems that perhaps it would be better ( easier ? ) if tanks actually experienced a delay when a crewman is killed - especially if it's the gunner/loader.

Right now a tank taking 1 or 2 casualties is still capable of instantaneous response to the threat ( if they don't bail immediately ) whereas an ATG crew taking a casualty is much more likely to cower and/or respond slower.

[Other Means]

WynnterGreen - I agree with your position 100%. Turning & moving speed far too slow, set up and pack-away time far too high.

I also think crew should be allowed to take cover - as in leave the gun - and re-crew it. Wasn't Soviet doctrine to have each man dig a slit trench and only be exposed when actually doing his job? That's abandonment and recrewing.

I've never actually abandoned a gun - there's nothing to lose by not doing so except the lives of the men: if there's men I want them to keep firing, if there's not there's no-one to abandon.

A tweak BFC could put at the end of one of the mammoth To-Dos is that guns can be captured in the same way prisoners are, with an effect on the score, unless they are abandoned in which case they are considered spiked.

JasonC - 1 tank = 10 guns. Aren't you comparing tanks killed by ATG with guns lost to any means?

[Freyberg]

Gun crews are affected by the same game limitation as infantry, in that they cluster very tightly together. If they could spread out a lot more, especially under fire, they wouldn't need to leave their weapon and still seek cover. Infantry and all crewed weapons could adopt more dispersed formations and to spread out under fire. Then there would be no need to actually leave the weapon in game terms.

[dan/california]

A purchasable option for light to medium overhead cover would go a long way. It might also make the gun harder to spot, since dust minimization and camo wold surely be SOP if you had time and supplies to dig the gun in properly.

It might even be possible to have the deploy un-deploy button roll the gun back and forth from cover to battery. Of course getting the gun out of such a position would take approximately forever and might not even be an option.

[sburke]

Well, I think with v 3.0 approaching, now it is the BEST timing to discuss the issue which, concluding from the 11 pages, temperature of dispute, and people's posts expecting BTF input, seems not to be unimportant..

Perhaps. It really isn't for me to say. However I think in the development process the cycle for the user community to expect to provide input that could lead to changes is a bit earlier. The feedback here would more likely show up in next module or patch as it would need first of all to have BF feel that now would be the time to address it/ have a plan on how to address it/ have time to test said plan.

That being said as I had noted this isn't the first time we have had this discussion and perhaps BF already has a plan. If so I still wouldn't expect much as they are very tight lipped when it comes to development.

Who knows though. Maybe BF will chime in and prove me inordinately stupid. I'd be fine with that.

[Vanir Ausf B]

A purchasable option for light to medium overhead cover would go a long way. It might also make the gun harder to spot, since dust minimization and camo wold surely be SOP if you had time and supplies to dig the gun in properly.

I did some testing today to see if there is anything already in the game that would help. Placing AT guns in trenches does make them more difficult to spot. Sandbag walls do not have the same effect.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

Way back in the CMBN Demo (1.10), I kept a U.S. 57mm ATG alive long enough to kill something on a distant dominating ridge by putting the 57 into a crater. The crew got a first round through and through on an AC and kept heroically firing at a second AC(?) as bullets from two HMG-42s slashed through these brave men.

Before that, I tried putting the gun with muzzle flush with the ground in a gully, behind a haystack, even in the small wood incorporating a gully. Dead gun every time. Quickly. One trying to fire from behind a house corner lasted longer than the other failed efforts before succumbing.

How I hate the whole AS business when it comes to trying to site a gun behind a building corner. What a nightmare! Barrel and a wheel in the left house wall, in the stone fence, Whole front of gun in the right house wall, or simply gun exposed or unable to shoot because now completely behind wall. Never had a trench, so will take your word on that.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Archijerej]

Hello everyone!

A couple of points:

Gun crews taking cover from enemy fire was a normal practice since the introduction of quick-firing artillery (and even before that). Actually, it was one the main goals of counterbattery fire, since the physical destruction of guns and crews was often not possible. A good reference point is a german breakthrough at Sedan (1940) when french losses in guns and personell were slight and yet their artillery was thoroughly neutralised. This applies to anti-tank gun crews as well. There is nothing "gamey" about that and it has nothing to do with crews "abandoning" their guns. As a matter of fact it's the current system that forces the player to abandon the guns, unless he wants to see his men lying hopelessly in the grass and being ripped apart by enemy shells. Even when the ability to recrew the guns will be introduced, the attacking player has several ways to counter this, all of which are historical and realistic:

1) He can try to disable the guns with direct HE fire, thus making them useless.

2) He can hit the guns with another barrage, if the crew is stubborn (foolish?) and wants to resume firing from the same position (The ability to instantly fire for effect, without spotting rounds, on already registered targets would greatly help here).

3) He can isolate the gun from the crew by direct fire, after the crew took cover.

Consider that when the crew is not manning the gun it's fire is neutralised, so I fail to see any "gamey" effect against the attacker.

As for the the guns mobility:

Smaller AT guns and infantry guns should be moved around the battlefield as they were historically (with proper consideration for terrain, crew fatigue etc.). They were designed specifically to follow closely the infantry and provide support against those targets that couldn't be neutralised by other heavy weapons. Again, nothing "gamey" about that. If someone tries to use them as tanks, he will be quickly punished by skillful opponent.

[HistoryLover]

Archijerej,

what makes you believe, from the fact of artillery being supressed, that the crews had ran away from their guns and that they were not in cover at their guns?

[Archijerej]

Archijerej,

what makes you believe, from the fact of artillery being supressed, that the crews had ran away from their guns and that they were not in cover at their guns?

This is not what I was trying to say. In fact the cover SHOULD be placed reasonably close to the guns. Depending on circumstances it could be natural cover (like this building 50m from the gun position mentioned in this thread), foxholes or more elaborate shelter like trenches or dugouts. Men staying around the gun under effective artillery/mortar fire (except in extreme emergency) is simply not realistic if there's cover available.

[HistoryLover]

50 m is not close. 5 m is close.

[A Canadian Cat]

There is nothing "gamey" about that and it has nothing to do with crews "abandoning" their guns. As a matter of fact it's the current system that forces the player to abandon the guns, unless he wants to see his men lying hopelessly in the grass and being ripped apart by enemy shells. Even when the ability to recrew the guns will be introduced, the attacking player has several ways to counter this, all of which are historical and realistic:

I agree 100% being able to move to cover and then re-man the gun would be an excellent game addition. +1 to that. I hope that BFC get down that far on their to do list.

No one is talking about abandoning a gun - which you can do now if you need to. We just want more realistic ability to protect the crews.

[A Canadian Cat]

50 m is not close. 5 m is close.

50m is not even 20s away at a jog. I call 50m close.

Granted most prepared positions would have shelter much closer than that. Being able to move a crew few meters away is all people are asking for. We can already abandon guns when they are going to be overrun.

To prevent gameiness, like always dismounting a gun and never abandoning it (even when your position is being overrun) just in case you can get back to it later in the battle, the game could automatically abandon the gun if the crew moved more than some small number of meters away.

[poesel]

... the game could automatically abandon the gun if the crew moved more than some small number of meters away.

Or the gun could 'surrender' (and thus be destroyed) if left alone and enemy near by. Same procedure as for infantry.

[HistoryLover]

50m is not even 20s away at a jog. I call 50m close.

When artillery is falling you would run 50 m or order others to do so? :eek:

Being able to move a crew few meters away is all people are asking for.

First it was wished that crews can leave their guns without restrictions. If it is now seen as unrealistic then we are a step further.

To prevent gameiness, like always dismounting a gun and never abandoning it (even when your position is being overrun) just in case you can get back to it later in the battle, the game could automatically abandon the gun if the crew moved more than some small number of meters away.

While being at the gun it must be decided if it is disabled (plus ammo blown up or taken with the crew).

If the player could disable the gun retroactively this would remove the main reason for not leaving the gun: being not able to come back and disable it.

I have the impression the severity of leaving a heavy wepon like an intact ATG behind is not fully recognized.

And btw it doesn't matter if the intention was different: the behaviour has to be that way, that it can not fall into the enemy's hands intact. That means that leaving the gun intact means that the leader takes it as acceptable risk, that he will not be able to return and disable it and that it falls into the enemy's hands intact.

Even this behaviour would be irresponsible.

And last but not least: the survival of the crew is less important than to deny an intact gun falling into the hands of the enemy.

[Archijerej]

To prevent gameiness, like always dismounting a gun and never abandoning it (even when your position is being overrun) just in case you can get back to it later in the battle, the game could automatically abandon the gun if the crew moved more than some small number of meters away.

[A Canadian Cat]

When artillery is falling you would run 50 m or order others to do so? :eek:

No and honestly 50m is probably to far. I would, however, run a short distance in a trench to place with overhead protection while under a barrage.

What I am after is the ability to allow a crew to un-man a gun and move to say a wooden bunker some where close by in the trench defensive system. I believe this is totally reasonable.

The above is the crux of the matter. Do you agree that it was normal procedure in a trench work system that gun crews would have a prepared location to seek cover? It kind of sounds like you reject that totally so I am just checking.

I have the impression the severity of leaving a heavy wepon like an intact ATG behind is not fully recognized.

Not by me - I totally get what you are saying. My crazy proposal for auto abandoning guns (and BTW I meant the game code would do it automatically not that the player could decide later) was to find some way to allow simulating the realistic "crew moves to a prepared location" without allowing silly "leave the gun and retreat with other forces and then come back later to operate the gun again later" that would clearly be totally off.

[HistoryLover]

Do you agree that it was normal procedure in a trench work system that gun crews would have a prepared location to seek cover? It kind of sounds like you reject that totally so I am just checking.

In my humble opinion it would be cool if scenario designers could assign foxholes to guns which could only be placed one or two action spots away (or if they could be bought as upgrade option in QBs).

In general I think the whole gun placement offers room for improvement. Instead of placing the gun on the surface, which looks good but has a lot of realism related disadvantages, I would like scenario designers being able to give the player the option to dig in the gun.

To achieve this, the action spot where the gun is placed, would sink the gun into the ground without changing the topography at all.

In this AS also the crew of the gun would sink into the earth and so the whole action spot could simulate a pit.

No foxholes on top of the ground.

Ofcourse the sinking into the ground could be visually supported by a texture, like it was done in CMx1.

Additionally I would like if scenario designers get the possibility to add a concealment bonus being effective until either the gun opens fire, is turned a certain angle or is moved.

I think guns need more than one tweak.