No US 90mm AA/AT guns?

[Lt Bull]

Hi,

Expecting the US 90mm AA/AT gun to to feature in the TOE.  Any good reason why this piece of equipment that featured in some key battles in the Ardennes didn't make the cut?

Edited April 10, 2016 by Lt Bull

[Sublime]

Hmm. If theyre not there its rlly odd because they should and saved the day more than a few times. This includes AAA 90mm units. Plus the Jacksons packing it so what gives..?

[Lt Bull]

26 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Hmm. If theyre not there its rlly odd because they should and saved the day more than a few times. This includes AAA 90mm units. Plus the Jacksons packing it so what gives..?

Correct.  The first I knew of their omission was in the "Kamfgruppe Peiper" operation which I started (amazing design!) and I am about to attack Stoumont where they famously featured (I remember them even in a Stoumont scenario back in CMBO days!).  In the designer notes it is (disappointingly) pointed out that because these units don't feature in CMFB, they are instead "simulated" by immobilised M36s

I can't think of why these weapons were omitted from CMFB.

[Sgt Joch]

It was discussed but the 90mm gun was almost exclusively used in rear areas. It was not felt the investment was worthwhile for the few times it was actually used in combat.

[niall78]

5 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

It was discussed but the 90mm gun was almost exclusively used in rear areas. It was not felt the investment was worthwhile for the few times it was actually used in combat.

Is there a major issue with adding 90mm guns to the game that makes this decision somewhat understandable I wonder?

[Sgt Joch]

you have to create the 3d model and the specific crew animations. A lot of work for a weapon that rarely saw any combat use.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Sgt Joch

[Sublime]

Ok i can see that. Though how often did sturmtigers really see combat use in the bulge? And how often did they literally change the outcome of major engagements? I can think of 2 or 3 major engagements where 90mm ATGs saved the day.

[Sgt Joch]

true, but you can get the exact same combat results with the M36.

again, I am just passing along the official position. This is the base game, just because the 90 mm is not in now does not mean it may not eventually make an appearance in a vehicle pack down the line.

[Sublime]

you can get similar but exact same I think is pushing it. after all an immobile M36 has MGs and has a higher profile than the ATG. it also sports armor, however thin.

[MarkEzra]

I do not know...perhaps it will make in a module

[MikeyD]

Let us recall the basegame is not the *full* game. There's still modules, vehicle packs and battle packs in CMFB's future. 90mm AA was not a common ground weapon at all, its a very odd duck indeed, known mostly for taking a couple shots at one crossroads. Being set up for AA, it used one man for elevation and another for azimuth - hardly an ideal AA setup. And its big. People think they want 90mm gun but players usually avoid purchasing those 'big' AA guns. 88 Pak hardly finds its way into a game at all. Hardly anyone uses the 85mm AA in CMRT. 

90mm AA might be a candidate for a future pack, along with... let me think of something... "M16 Wasp" - the towed AA .50 cal quad mounted on surplus M2 half-track chassis. Very much more common than 90mm AA in ground combat but few people have ever heard of it.

[Sublime]

Well to be fair a lot of the bigger atgs arent used prolly bc engine limitations. Being able to use points to fortify gun pits woild probably change that... and i mean a major revamp. Levels to it. Overhead cover. Etc. Gun bunkers. Fortified houses. Pits dug so the 88 barrel is just clearing grond

Edited April 11, 2016 by Sublime

[user1000]

The 116th served in the ETO, entering combat on June 7, 1944 (D+1) at Utah Beach, Normandy under the command of Col. James Shearouse. Batteries were attached to the 2nd, 5th (D Battery), 30th, and 35th Infantry Divisions for much of the campaigns in Northwest Europe. The 116th's 90-mm guns were also attached to the 654th Tank Destroyer Battalion during early August, deployed in an anti-tank role supporting the 654th in attacks against German armor operating in the vicinity of Vic Conde-Sur-Vire, France. They participated in the Battle of the Bulge and in the defense of the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen, Germany in March 1945. The M1 90mm AA gun, like that depicted below, was their primary weapon.

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by user1000

[MikeyD]

The notion of big towed AA guns 'supporting' offensive operations into German territory is kind'a funny. How does that work, exactly? I suppose it would primarily entail digging in on the flanks and sitting there just in case German armor happened to try something clever. Unless they were being used as erzats artillery. By coincidence, that's how the Ukrainian 90mm AT gun is supposed to be used. Place 'em on the flanks as a cheap form of tank defense, then sit & wait while the tanks & ATGMs up ahead are being put to better use.

[Dynaman216]

One way it works is the German penchant for counterattacks - counterattacking into a 90mm AA gun is enough to ruin most German tanks' day.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, user1000 said:

The 116th served in the ETO, entering combat on June 7, 1944 (D+1) at Utah Beach, Normandy under the command of Col. James Shearouse. Batteries were attached to the 2nd, 5th (D Battery), 30th, and 35th Infantry Divisions for much of the campaigns in Northwest Europe. The 116th's 90-mm guns were also attached to the 654th Tank Destroyer Battalion during early August, deployed in an anti-tank role supporting the 654th in attacks against German armor operating in the vicinity of Vic Conde-Sur-Vire, France. They participated in the Battle of the Bulge and in the defense of the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen, Germany in March 1945. The M1 90mm AA gun, like that depicted below, was their primary weapon.

 

Just as a clarification, their use at the Ludendorff bridge would have been as AAA. The Germans tried very hard to bomb it. ISTR they even fired a V-2 or two at it.

Michael

[GhostRider3/3]

True... on that it may enter in later.  That weapon system was huge, I believe the weapon alone was 15' long.. I believe it was the M1 version.. then upgraded to the M3 version..  T-15 series.. rare, used at the end of the war.  I believe the 3rd Armored div had some.  One thing I would like to know is, or how rare the HVAP round will be on the Allied side.  Supposedly they were rare all the way up until the end of the war.... I guess this weapon system would be about as cumbersome as the German 88mm flak gun.

Which understandably they have done away with them being towed by the Sdkfzd 7, and then taking 5 minutes to deploy.  even though I believe German crews could do it in 2 min.  Anyways, it takes a Deuce to tow one of those bad boys.  Nice gun though. 

[Sgt Joch]

The 90 mm Gun is a perfect example of a weapon which was designed for a threat which never materialized. It was ordered at a time when the U.S. thought it would be facing hordes of German tanks and aircraft and they wanted a powerful defensive AT/AA gun. By the time they were deployed, both threats had disappeared. Almost 8,000 were built, most wound up in storage or deployed in rear areas. The only time they were used in combat in a AT role was in rare situations like the Bulge where the Germans went on the offensive and managed to penetrate deep behind Allied lines.

76 mm HVAP (APCR in game) is present in CMFB, but still rare during the December battles. The Chieftain Hatch had an article on that, production was ramped up in late 1944, but HVAP only became more generally available in 1945.

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/us-guns-german-armor-part-2/

Edited April 12, 2016 by Sgt Joch

[Odin]

On 10/04/2016 at 2:54 PM, Sgt Joch said:

you have to create the 3d model and the specific crew animations. A lot of work for a weapon that rarely saw any combat use.

If that is the reason it's a disappointing decision given how little CMFB adds in terms of new equipment when compared to the new content created for other CMx2 titles.

Also there are other weapons which have made the cut for past titles that were even fewer and far between eg obscure German halftracks, jagdtiger etc....

Edited April 15, 2016 by Odin

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think I get the official party line.  90 MM AA guns did play an important role in a few places but they're a really complex thingy to add into the game.  Might be neat if they showed up in a module.

I think the fewer and far between line is hard to establish.  Jagditgers might have been rare, but they left a pretty big impression in the consciousness of WW2 nerds.  The 90 MM AA guns did not show up that often, were not as "sexy" and did not play a major part in the US direct fire capability.  

[user1000]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 Jagditgers might have been rare

70-80 made is damn rare, and that's if they didn't break down, run out of fuel or fall through some bridge trying to get somewhere first. As for the 90mm gun, wiki claims "Several thousand were available when the US entered the war"

"Production rates continued to improve, topping out in the low thousands per month."

There is buried information out there that never made it to the internet about the guns exact use in ww2, Possibly by vets or possibly by book, I have not had the time to look for it.

Edited April 15, 2016 by user1000

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

When the Jadgtigers showed up, they made an impression.  They were a terrible waste of resources and ultimately not that effective for reasons you mentioned, but again, they still saw service and fairly extensive combat for their small number.

While  thousands of 90 MM anti-aircraft guns were produced, a very small portion of them (perhaps even less than the Jadgtigers) saw direct fire employment, many of them tied up keeping Seattle WA safe from Japanese bombers, shooting down V1s,  deployed protecting rear areas etc.  They just were not commonly employed for a variety of reasons.

Again they were present, and they were employed used although not frequently.  I was surprised not to see them, but I don't exactly feel like a key, or even very significant part of the winter 1944 battlescape is missing.

[user1000]

^ Agreed. I found this on them if anyone is interested

[Seedorf81]

Hey, you 90 mm complainers,  we - the "why the f*&k isn't the schwimmwagen in CMFB" moaners - were first!

[Michael Emrys]

8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I think the fewer and far between line is hard to establish.  Jagditgers might have been rare, but they left a pretty big impression in the consciousness of WW2 nerds.  The 90 MM AA guns did not show up that often, were not as "sexy" and did not play a major part in the US direct fire capability.  

I think you are on to something there. I think sexiness in the minds of gamers has always been a big factor in what gets worked on in CM. Although its mechanics are largely infantry-centric, BFC has always devoted a seemingly disproportionate amount of development and artistic effort to the many varieties of armored vehicles. This is not a BFC peculiarity, but a quirk of the hobby as a whole. Gamers are fascinated by tanks and have always devoted a huge amount of attention to them relative to the grunts. Partly that was due to the rapid technological evolution of armored vehicles during the war. The same kind of thing can be observed among air forces and their equipment and its employment.

And for the OP, expect BFC to try to serve what they think the average player wants to see. If you have something in mind that you think they are neglecting, make your case. Just don't be strident. Try to see BFC as your friend even when they don't jump to service your desire as soon as you voice it.

Michael