Tips for spotting AT guns

[SimpleSimon]

I think the issue is that AT guns are employed with great frequency in CM scenarios because they're popular "gotchas" for trying to maneuver over open sight lines. Issue is that many scenarios apply them too frequently as a crutch for the passive defense AI and you end up with a slice of front that's a deathtrap for an attacking force unless they have a lot of support. 

[George MC]

24 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:

I think the issue is that AT guns are employed with great frequency in CM scenarios because they're popular "gotchas" for trying to maneuver over open sight lines. Issue is that many scenarios apply them too frequently as a crutch for the passive defense AI and you end up with a slice of front that's a deathtrap for an attacking force unless they have a lot of support. 

That's how the Soviets dealt with German armoured counter attacks and why the Germans liked to attack ASAP before the Soviets had time to build an AT defence. So it would depend on the context but having to fight your way through a wheen of Soviet PAK is not ahistorical.

[SimpleSimon]

Indeed, German field accounts frequently emphasize captured ZiS and other heavy guns of various caliber after attacks. I suspect in most of these cases though the guns were not seized by close assault (an inevitably bloody affair) but after their crews abandoned or surrendered them. I often get the sense the scenario designers are characterizing the respective Armies backwards. The way Axis Defense scenarios are frequently designed it feels like a Soviet or British officer planned them. Densely packed infantry holding obvious terrain objective, defense lines, Battalion and lesser HQs huddled in back of map, etc. 

[Blazing 88's]

Many, many accounts of German tank crews crushing manned AT guns under their tracks during assaults (in books like in the 'Panzer Aces, II, III', etc). 

By accounts, especially on the WWII Eastern Front, more AT guns should be encountered not less.

[SimpleSimon]

I read those books, self narrated accounts of the heroism of Aryan German Supermen literally "crushing" feeble Slav untermensch under their treads should considered, but with caution and scrutiny. Especially considering how often officers and crews manipulated after action reports. If the scenario designers are taking AARs at face value well then it's no wonder they seriously think a front several thousand kilometers long had a Pak40 for every 200ft of line when in the grand majority of cases no "line" existed at all, and the nearest armed mob referring to itself as the Army of its given nation was a couple of bearded, half starved riflemen suffering most of their casualties from dysentery and frostbite.  

In the broadest sense? No. We should not be seeing as many heavy weapons as we see. 

[Blazing 88's]

16 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

I read those books, self narrated accounts of the heroism of Aryan German Supermen literally "crushing" feeble Slav untermensch under their treads should considered, but with caution and scrutiny. Especially considering how often officers and crews manipulated after action reports. If the scenario designers are taking AARs at face value well then it's no wonder they seriously think a front several thousand kilometers long had a Pak40 for every 200ft of line when in the grand majority of cases no "line" existed at all, and the nearest armed mob referring to itself as the Army of its given nation was a couple of bearded, half starved riflemen suffering most of their casualties from dysentery and frostbite.  

In the broadest sense? No. We should not be seeing as many heavy weapons as we see. 

F'n assume books!!  I have approx. 12 or more from the series.  Love 'em.

Not just those books...  Many, many accounts.  But hey believe what YOU want to believe, I am not going to try and change your mind about what you think about those accounts.  I will say this though...  MORE PaK!!! 

[Vet 0369]

On September 30, 2018 at 5:59 PM, SimpleSimon said:

Indeed, German field accounts frequently emphasize captured ZiS and other heavy guns of various caliber after attacks. I suspect in most of these cases though the guns were not seized by close assault (an inevitably bloody affair) but after their crews abandoned or surrendered them.

I'm not so sure about that, since the Political Commissars assigned to the Soviet units had a bad habit of setting up machine guns behind the front line to slaughter any retreating Soviet soldiers. That's why board games such as Advanced Squad Leader assigned a higher morale value to units with a Commisar. I don't think it was because they actually increased morale, but that they offered a choice of the troops possibly dying by the enemy or definitely dying by the Commisar.

[SimpleSimon]

Where they were sure. The fronts were all massive and ps not all of those guys were really that fanatical. Svetlana Alexievich's book highlights numerous cases of commissars taking a "soft" line against soldiers who had done everything that these guys were supposed to have you shot for. Plenty were party hard liners too that yes commit atrocities against their own men but it will be forever difficult to verify the cases in detail because reports are so misleading and witness accounts are only of limited value here and on top of all that you have Soviet recalcitrance in records. I think reality infiltrated more often than we Americans and Europeans like to believe because hey stereotyping is easy and propaganda was really ubiquitous. 

Plus a lot of guys were salty about Stalin's regime and the communists in general for good reason after the war but i'm sure that also led to lots of cases of mistaken intention. That machine gun position you're describing may well have just been a 2nd line of defense, or shot at fellow soldiers because of mistaken identification. For some reason no one in the USAAF describes all the times they were lit up by their own AAA as "officers trying to stop cowards". It happens. 

[danfrodo]

All well said about the 1000km front, etc.  I would add that at some places there were lots of PAKs, tanks, etc.  Those are the places we play in the game.  The parts of the front that were poorly defended were of course more numerous, but aren't much fun to play, and were generally not the important places, usually due to being poor areas for transportation/movement.  AT guns would be concentrated at strategic/tactically important areas, just as would be more troops, tanks, etc.  There were certainly very wide stretches of terrain w no AT guns at all, probably just covered by patrols if at all.  But the important roads, etc, those would be have some nasty defenses set up.  This is how the Soviets were always able to make bridgeheads across rivers.-- the germans couldn't defend the whole river line in strength.  Happened all the time.

[A Canadian Cat]

35 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Those are the places we play in the game.

Pretty much as simple as that. If any one wants to create some scenarios that take place in those areas between the important roads etc. I am sure there would be takers.

[SimpleSimon]

Sure that's fine, as long as the player is given reasonable tools from which he can solve the scenario with. If the scenario designer's intention is to be unfair then a disclaimer for such should be placed in the briefing or an "out" of some kind left to the player via mission discontinuance or scoring. (Placing higher value on force preservation than capturing objectives for instance.)

Don't trick people. Don't deceive the player. Give them something to work with. It's a video game at the end of the day. 

[Dynaman216]

On 10/3/2018 at 10:39 AM, IanL said:

Pretty much as simple as that. If any one wants to create some scenarios that take place in those areas between the important roads etc. I am sure there would be takers.

The second Band of Brothers episode dealing with Market Garden shows such a place.  It could make for an interesting scenario.