Heavy AT gun concealment

[Gazmaps]

Hello all

Ive really enjoyed CM - particulary in Huge Maps and scenarios and love playing with a wide range of units and tactics.

Ive experimented a lot lately with H/ T and AT guns.

Ive noted the common thread on H / T gunners but will not comment except to add that I think H/T gunners will not engage targets at ranges > 200m
very often. They do not appear to area fire out past 300m or so. They also do not seem to spot well and when they do spot and engage, tend to have low volume of fire strange for a mounted mg (but I ve not tested or looked into this in detail - just basic observations from a number of H2H games). 

I think the observations on AT guns will be more relevant to CMFB - due to the larger maps and nature of the units and terrain it is set in.

While playing with AT guns (noteably 88mm Flak - I had 4 in one particular game) I found them to be easily detectable and destroyed out past 1000m by my Human opponent (who was also slightly disappointed by this - but art'yd them anyway :)) 

They where placed in light woods with foliage cover and in foxholes.

I ran some tests - which Ill post in the CMBN section.

Untill getting to between 1000 and 1600m 88mm Flak guns get little concealment bonus (even if in concealment and hiding and not yet having opened fire)

88mm (Pak 43 AT Guns) get a slightly improved bonus but will also typically be identified within 2mins up to 1000m

75mm AT Guns and 20mm Flaks remianed concealed at ranges starting at 450m (did not test at shorter ranges)

So my questions / assumptions are;

1. Im assuming this has likely not been changed in CMFB?
2. I believe the larger AT guns should get some better concealment bonus. What do other players think?
3. If agreed what in reality would have been real life ranges these heavy AT guns could remain concelaled? I would think a lot closer in than 1000m - 
especially if in concealing terain such as woods.
4. SHould spotting times be increased as well as reduction in spotting range?

5. What's the chances of this getting into the first patch?

Now - both 88mm variants are big boys - but 1000m - especially if dug in and camoflauged is a long way to be spotted.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/9939582803_9db6f87bc9_b.jpg
http://i1.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/PaK-431.jpg

I love how the games have gradually been improved over the years - namely AT guns and MGs from community feedback, so be interested what the community thinks about this.

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

The 88 with the big square gunshield is very easy to spot at range, and it seems the game treats it as being uncamouflaged. However, it's a common mistake by players to place AT-guns in foxholes. The gun won't receive any benefits from this. Foxholes are too small, the gun doesn't fit. To protect any sort of infantry gun, you need a trench.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[Gazmaps]

Good point - it is a big gun shield but I would suggest if dug in and concealed - 1000m is still a long way to detect the gun.

especially if say placed in a wood line.

I'd suggest that not accounting the above, the point would still stand regarding the 88mm pak 43, which has a much lower silhouette.

I thought the foxholes protected the crew? Do trenches protect the gun and the crew?

[John Kettler]

Gazmaps,

Welcome aboard!

Bulletpoint is absolutely right. You can't get any ATG into a foxhole, but you can put one in a trench, though a proper emplacement would be much better--if we had them! The other alternative is a large enough shell or bomb crater, if available. In my earliest days of CMBN, I tried anything and everything to keep a 57 mm ATG in the fight (woods, gully, wall corner, behind haystacks, etc.), but the only thing I found that actually worked was a shell crater. Then and only then was I actually able to fight the gun for a time, during which it racked up several AC kills and dished out other pain before the crew ultimately succumbed to multiple HMGs sleeting the position from a ridge. The US 3-Inch M5 ATG is a beast (have stood right next to one at Ft. Benning), but even it can be made a pretty small target. This is shown FM-18-21 TOWED GUN PLATOON, which is the bible for this weapon. Though the photos are useless, the drawings and the text will leave you in no doubt the vertical profile and detectability of this weapon can be drastically reduced. Also, and though I don't have any direct data for the M5 ATG, people have had very good results hiding Pak 40s in grass, but this may have a lot to do with the low height of that ATG. The main URL is better than Christmas for grog goodness.

http://www.easy39th.com/files/FM_18-21_Towed_Gun_Platoon_1944.pdf

 Regards,

John Kettler

[Bulletpoint]

If you try to place an AT-gun in foxholes, you will see that the crew doesn't sit in the actual holes. They stay up to man the gun. This is not just a graphical effect, it means the guys don't get any protection from the foxholes.

Hedgerows are both great cover and concealment for AT-guns. Also forest (not just the type of ground, but the actual trees). A gun on a forest tile with 2-3 trees and behind a hedgerow is usually very well protected, including from mortars.

But if your opponent is about to launch serious artillery, having the gun in a trench and then choosing "hide" when you see the spotting rounds will help. Won't make the gun invincible, but will protect a lot.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[womble]

There's also a big difference between "in a treeline" and "hidden in the trees". If you want to hide your asset (any asset) in AS that have trees and "Forest" ground type, you want to drag it as far back into the woodland as you can and still be able to draw a LOS line out of the forest to where you want to be able to shoot. If your gun can still target a good semicircle of open ground, it's probably too near the edge to get any meaningful concealment from the "forest" it's in. It also pays to be aware that not all trees are planted in "forest" terrain types, and that makes a difference, as does any brush between the gun and any potential observer.

[RockinHarry]

Just like with AFV, lowering the silhouette of the gun, particularly the barn door 88 is the best way to gain some protection, at least vs. direct enemy return fire. That means finding some "hull down" positions and in case of guns, a position that gets the gun low enough so that the tube is almost level with the ground and still provides desired line of fire. Small -1 m depressions in the ground, or +1m ditch locked berms provide this sort of protective terrain, as could medium sized craters.

[Andrew H.]

Keep in mind that the 88 Flak, when viewed from the front, is approximately the size of a military truck.

[MikeyD]

The trick with the bigger guns (any guns) is keyholing. Put them into a position where only a limited number of enemy can spot you at any one time so its less likely you'll be overwhelmed. I've had battles where I never spotted the darned AT gun. Each unit that could spot it got KO'd first, the other's were never in a good position to spot. I recall reading a Brit report about the (4 pounder?) AT gun in North Africa. The report said on average an AT gun during a battle will be able to get off six shots, I think, before getting knocked out. So its very much a case of knocking out more of them than they do of you for the 'win'.

[Warts 'n' all]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

The trick with the bigger guns (any guns) is keyholing. Put them into a position where only a limited number of enemy can spot you at any one time so its less likely you'll be overwhelmed. I've had battles where I never spotted the darned AT gun. Each unit that could spot it got KO'd first, the other's were never in a good position to spot. I recall reading a Brit report about the (4 pounder?) AT gun in North Africa. The report said on average an AT gun during a battle will be able to get off six shots, I think, before getting knocked out. So its very much a case of knocking out more of them than they do of you for the 'win'.

Very good advice on AT gun deployment and usage. Although I think that you meant a 6lbr, us Limeys didn't produce a 4.

[A co]

Or a 2 pdr maybe. Another advantage of keyholing is that if the gun is set back in terrain with very broken lines of sight, the enemy may even have trouble calling arty onto it, as the spotting rounds may well fall out of the spotter's LOS.  

[MikeyD]

I'm getting my pounders all mixed up. Definitely meant a 2 pdr. I sat in the gunner's seat of one of those things in a British village while on vacation many years (decades) ago.

[Pak40]

On 4/13/2016 at 0:22 PM, MikeyD said:

The trick with the bigger guns (any guns) is keyholing. Put them into a position where only a limited number of enemy can spot you at any one time so its less likely you'll be overwhelmed. I've had battles where I never spotted the darned AT gun. Each unit that could spot it got KO'd first, the other's were never in a good position to spot. 

Bingo.

 

On 4/13/2016 at 5:11 AM, Gazmaps said:

I ran some tests - which Ill post in the CMBN section.

Untill getting to between 1000 and 1600m 88mm Flak guns get little concealment bonus (even if in concealment and hiding and not yet having opened fire)

88mm (Pak 43 AT Guns) get a slightly improved bonus but will also typically be identified within 2mins up to 1000m

75mm AT Guns and 20mm Flaks remianed concealed at ranges starting at 450m (did not test at shorter ranges)

What unit is doing the spotting? If they have binoculars then they do get a bonus. What kind of concealment are they in or behind?

[Gazmaps]

I've just posted the test setup in the CMBN forum,

Essentially US  FO squads.

AT guns placed on edge of Light Woods (with 2 x Trees from foliage placed in all actions squares as well)

I think many of the responces regarding keyholing are quite valid as well as setting back maybe to the second action square in the woodline - however will depend on how thee trees fall (if placed with foliage)

Though my intuition tells me a prepared and camouflaged gun even the size of an 88 would be hard to spot at 1000m if placed on the edge of a treeline.

 

 

[John Kettler]

Gazmaps,

As you can see here, a properly emplaced 88 is nowhere nearly as big as people might think. There've been spotting probability studies done, a major finding of which was that the height of the target is a key factor in detecting it. Having a low vertical profile also makes it harder to hit, there being less danger space. Consequently, range errors exert more leverage than they do for targets with greater danger space values.  The second pic is from Lone Sentry and is taken from a formerly classified and now Public Domain May 1943 Intelligence Bulletin. The CMx2 games don't model German smokeless/flashless propellant, an advantage much complained about in the US feedback from the field all the way up to general officer, and the game doesn't depict measures to suppress firing signature, either, such as wetting down the ground, tarps pr even oil. Given the prevalence of mud in CMFB, I think it could be fairly argued this alone would reduce the chance of spotting a heavy ATG when it fires.

http://s47.photobucket.com/user/joel01569/media/emplacement.jpg.html



Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 15, 2016 by John Kettler

[Fizou]

Bunkers are depressed into terrain to fit at times when deployed. Couldn't the same thing be done for big AT guns to have them more concealed lite Kettlers images?

[RockinHarry]

15 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Gazmaps,

As you can see here, a properly emplaced 88 is nowhere nearly as big as people might think. There've been spotting probability studies done, a major finding of which was that the height of the target is a key factor in detecting it. Having a low vertical profile also makes it harder to hit, there being less danger space. Consequently, range errors exert more leverage than they do for targets with greater danger space values.  The second pic is from Lone Sentry and is taken from a formerly classified and now Public Domain May 1943 Intelligence Bulletin. The CMx2 games don't model German smokeless/flashless propellant, an advantage much complained about in the US feedback from the field all the way up to general officer, and the game doesn't depict measures to suppress firing signature, either, such as wetting down the ground, tarps pr even oil. Given the prevalence of mud in CMFB, I think it could be fairly argued this alone would reduce the chance of spotting a heavy ATG when it fires.

http://s47.photobucket.com/user/joel01569/media/emplacement.jpg.html



Regards,

John Kettler

That´s what I meant to say further above. Most the guns can be placed in ditch locked -1m depressions, mid to heavy size craters and all that. Other alternatives is sunken roads and rear slope positions. The latter also has some advantage vs. direct fire HE. There´s nothing behind the gun that catches the shell and creates a near hit which can be lethal. The incoming arcing shell keeps flying downward (behind the crest) and explodes way farer behind the gun. That would also be the reason not to place the gun in or near other terrain that catches HE like trees and buildings do. That combined with key holed positions gives the guns a reasonably good survival chance on the battlefield. The problem is, unless prepared by a map maker, there´s not many such positions on most the available maps, hard to find or at the wrong place. But these remain the rules of thump for placing guns.

[niall78]

15 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

That´s what I meant to say further above. Most the guns can be placed in ditch locked -1m depressions, mid to heavy size craters and all that. Other alternatives is sunken roads and rear slope positions. The latter also has some advantage vs. direct fire HE. There´s nothing behind the gun that catches the shell and creates a near hit which can be lethal. The incoming arcing shell keeps flying downward (behind the crest) and explodes way farer behind the gun. That would also be the reason not to place the gun in or near other terrain that catches HE like trees and buildings do. That combined with key holed positions gives the guns a reasonably good survival chance on the battlefield. The problem is, unless prepared by a map maker, there´s not many such positions on most the available maps, hard to find or at the wrong place. But these remain the rules of thump for placing guns.

At the moment for proper prepared positions that make the best use out of AT guns I think we need designers to build them into specific scenarios.

Until the player can 'buy' such prepared positions as a fortification before the battle such guns will never be super effective. Even with such prepared positions such guns 'usefulness' will still be highly map dependant.

Here's a question that after decades reading WW2 historical books I can't answer. How effective were towed AT weapons on the Western Front in WW2? They get a lot of mentions in the desert war - mainly the 88s effectiveness. You get many mentions on the Eastern Front - the Pakfront concept was developed here. They don't seem to get as much attention in Western Front literature. Was the artillery advantage of the Western Allies in 1944-45 a big counter to towed AT during this campaign? 

[MikeyD]

In CMFI the game fields Panther turret gun emplacements. They don't seem to get used much because its soooo difficult to properly place a unit to your advantage. They'd be ideal for placing  4-5 units at the far end of a broad plain with overlapping fields of fire. Except nobody builds maps like that. That's one thing people don't often think about, when a map designer is selecting a real world location he automatically gravitates to areas with the 'coolest' tactical possibilities. Look 400m to the west and you'll probably see a stretch of flat ground with inadequate cover and limited tactical options. An ideal spot for placing a couple big anti-tank guns at the far end, if only someone would build a map of it.

Edited April 15, 2016 by MikeyD

[Vanir Ausf B]

8 hours ago, niall78 said:

Here's a question that after decades reading WW2 historical books I can't answer. How effective were towed AT weapons on the Western Front in WW2? They get a lot of mentions in the desert war - mainly the 88s effectiveness. You get many mentions on the Eastern Front - the Pakfront concept was developed here. They don't seem to get as much attention in Western Front literature. Was the artillery advantage of the Western Allies in 1944-45 a big counter to towed AT during this campaign? 

No idea if the Germans did such a study. They didn't have the option of not using them in lieu of something else like the US did, which is probably why the US did attempt to quantify their effectiveness.

Zaloga:

 

Quote

One study concluded that towed tank destroyer battalions fighting independently according to doctrine -- and not embedded in an infantry division --- suffered a loss ratio of about 3:1 in favor of the attacking panzers. When integrated against doctrine into an infantry defensive position the towed antitank guns were barely adequate with an exchange ratio of 1:1.3 in favor of the guns. In contrast, the self-propelled M10 3-inch tank destroyers had a favorable exchange ratio of 1:1.9 when operating independently without infantry support and an excellent ratio of 1:6 when integrated into an infantry defense as a supporting arm. The study noted that the towed 3-inch guns were successful in only two out of nine defensive actions while the M10 tank destroyer battalions were successful in fourteen of sixteen defensive actions against German tanks. The US First Army's tank destroyer losses in the Ardennes totaled 119 weapons, of which 86 were towed guns, a remarkable disproportion that glaringly revealed the vulnerability of the towed guns.

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

In CMFI the game fields Panther turret gun emplacements. They don't seem to get used much because its soooo difficult to properly place a unit to your advantage. They'd be ideal for placing  4-5 units at the far end of a broad plain with overlapping fields of fire. Except nobody builds maps like that. That's one thing people don't often think about, when a map designer is selecting a real world location he automatically gravitates to areas with the 'coolest' tactical possibilities. Look 400m to the west and you'll probably see a stretch of flat ground with inadequate cover and limited tactical options. An ideal spot for placing a couple big anti-tank guns at the far end, if only someone would build a map of it.

Would be the easiest map in the world to make in the editor - probably 10 minutes work, tops. But who would have fun playing it?

[RockinHarry]

9 hours ago, niall78 said:

Here's a question that after decades reading WW2 historical books I can't answer. How effective were towed AT weapons on the Western Front in WW2? They get a lot of mentions in the desert war - mainly the 88s effectiveness. You get many mentions on the Eastern Front - the Pakfront concept was developed here. They don't seem to get as much attention in Western Front literature. Was the artillery advantage of the Western Allies in 1944-45 a big counter to towed AT during this campaign? 

Think the germans in 1944, particularly after Normandy had rarely enough Pak left to build something like a Pakfront, even locally. Allied artillery superiority surely played an important role with anything non armored beeing highly vulnerably. Thus germans opted to build more and better Panzerjagers instead and tried to make them organic to the late war infantry (Volksgrenadier) divisions, or opted for the cheapest version...bycicle mounted bazooka boys.