Guest coolguy101 Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 From what I have heard, there will be a command to where a MG unit can be ordered to abandon it`s MG. I am wondering if the unit will be able to retrieve it`s MG at another point in the scenario and if so will enemy units be able to pick up or destroy abandoned guns? Just wondering THAT IS ALL [This message has been edited by coolguy101 (edited 09-21-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Nope, once a weapon has been abandoned, that's it. Nothing like in SteelPanthers (good game all in all) where you can have guys abandon a gun, then go back, then run away again... Once a crew-served gun has been abandoned, it ceases to be a factor for anybody. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Doug is correct. Once a weapon/vehicle is abandoned, that is it. Usually a crew takes off due to panic, pending doom, or damage. These are all pretty strong things. We wanted to get rid of the gamey convention of pretending to leave a weapon only to run back and make it functional again. No using enemy weapons of any sort. This RARELY happened during a CM battle's timeframe in real life. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 I would also expect that most crews abandoning a weapon would blow the breech, or some other disabling action before fleeing. It would be really bad to get shot in the back with your own weapon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Yeah, much worse than being shot in the back with somebody else's weapon. Sorry, I couldn't resist! DjB [This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 09-21-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Once again making an excursion to military history... If CM was to model Napoleonic warfare, then abandoning and reoccupying guns would be neccessary. At the time the guns were positioned some 10-15 meters in front of infantry line (or square or whatever formation they were using). When the enemy cavalry tried to attack the infantry positions, the gunners would have time to fire one or two shots, and then they would retreat to the cover of infantry. The cavalrymen would then huff and puff for a moment (if the infantry formation didn't break, there was nothing that cavalry could do to hurt them) and retreat. Then the artillerists would man their guns and continue firing. (Yes, spiking guns would have been sensible thing to do for the cavalry, but generally they didn't do it.) - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Hi, I thought it was, sometimes, the Soviet practice to abandon anti-tank guns when under fire, but then to re-man them when the "fire" went looking for other targets. This does sound like a good way to try and reduce crew casualties for anti-tank guns. "The tanks are shooting at us - run away!". "They are shooting at something else now - back to the guns!" I'm sure I read this, in a late war combat report from a Panzer Division, in the Nafziger book on Panzer tactics. It also talks about the Soviet practice of using "pak nests". I'm just throwing this in for discussion, and for possible consideration for "East Front CM" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts