AT Guns

[Lethaface]

My experience with AT guns is a bit twofold (both SP and PBEM). If I encounter them I can usually scout them and mortar them or suppress m with MGs / whatever and force them to abandon the piece.

However in trenches or foxholes they can be rather resilient.

Often opponents don't use covered arcs with them and let them open up at infantry scouts or at a range / situation where I can just reverse or move to cover and plan for it's demise.
I think for that same reason I usually prefer mobile stuff in QBs. 

However the couple of times I got some of them in a scenario PBEM, they have been quite a force to reckon with. Some enemy players will try to duel with it using their tanks, which is usually not a good idea.
Also using hide, (armor) covered arcs and foxholes/trenches plus a good fire discipline they can be very valuable. Don't let them open up on the first vehicle you see, but rather wait till a few have moved in it's arc and ideally when cover isn't around. 

And indeed they need some terrain for good positioning, where you can maintain security against infantry overrunning it. Small maps are probably not ideal for static guns.

These boys did a good number on enemy tanks and infantry in a PBEM (I waited for good opportunity to open fire). Tanks and later infantry in buildings with nowhere to run.

 

The same goes for these boys:

 

Both took out ~5 Shermans before biting the dust. 

[Bud Backer]

I suppose I should have been more precise in describing my experience - I don’t usually bother with scenarios, and I haven’t played against the AI in quite a few years. So my experience with them is purely against other players and being both and on the receiving and giving end of the barrel I think they can be very useful. Certainly when they supplement my more mobile elements. 

[Bulletpoint]

17 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

It looks to me that the guns are still better off in a trench than not in a trench.

Thanks for sharing test results, but I think the real comparison should be with a gun sitting in a forest tile with a couple of trees. I find those to be extremely difficult to spot, so I'd always prefer to put a tank in forest without a trench to give away the position...

[Redwolf]

Does anybody have measurements about the benefit for protection/cover that trenches and foxholes offer?

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

For AT guns? I don't. I did do some testing for infantry in foxholes years ago. I may still have the data somewhere. I don't think foxholes do anything for AT guns.

[Redwolf]

I apologize for not testing much lately. All this stuff should be documented in the first place.

In CMx1 you could use the "target" command and it would display an exposure rating for the target.

[Lethaface]

6 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

For AT guns? I don't. I did do some testing for infantry in foxholes years ago. I may still have the data somewhere. I don't think foxholes do anything for AT guns.

From my anecdotal experience they do, but only if the infantry can actually occupy them while manning the gun. That's not always possible with hedges or other terrain. Even the sandbags can soak up some fire (I believe).

In smallish QBs usually points go to some form of infantry company with support. Usually there not enough points for both both mobile stuff and AT guns (apart from mortars & MGs). So in a defending QB my pick goes towards mortars and machineguns and some mobile stuff, with static AT guns guns taking the short straw. But in a larger game where the opportunity cost is lower and featuring on a map with some open spaces and nice positions they can give very good value for money. If used correctly!
 

Edited January 19, 2022 by Lethaface

[chuckdyke]

6 hours ago, Redwolf said:

Does anybody have measurements about the benefit for protection/cover that trenches and foxholes offer?

 

I think if an AT-Gun occupies a foxhole and you put it on hide the crew is protected as they will be below LOS inside the foxhole, but I think the AT-Gun is not. 

[user1000]

yeah well smoke and sound gives off their position, that's why AT guns are easy to spot. Real life back then as well.

Edited January 19, 2022 by user1000

[Redwolf]

15 minutes ago, user1000 said:

yeah well smoke and sound gives off their position, that's why AT guns are easy to spot. Real life back then as well.

I don't think anybody in this thread has a problem with how they are spotted after they fire...

[chuckdyke]

8 hours ago, Redwolf said:

I don't think anybody in this thread has a problem with how they are spotted after they fire...

Apart from letting units who didn't spot them doing convenient area fire at the sandbags which are displayed. 

[landser]

Interesting discussion. Yes, AT guns are short-lived in Combat Mission generally. To counter this my doctrine is to keyhole whenever it's is possible. No 'pak front' deployment, with fields of fire. Instead, it gets nestled where it has a very narrow avenue to shoot, the keyhole concept. This does not do much to protect it from indirect fire of course, but works wonders for survivability against other ground units.

The catch is it's only possible sometimes. On many maps it might mean a flanking keyhole behind a stand of woods as an example, waiting for the enemy armor to pass that obstacle. This means inviting the armor past, or abreast, of your MLR. it also negates the range advantage most of these systems enjoy. You lose the ability to thin the herd from range using your AT guns.

I've always struggled with AT guns in Combat Mission. Not only are they very vulnerable once they fire, I also find them difficult to place precisely where I want them due to the action squares mechanic I guess. And attempting to tow one in to position and get it all set up is usually an exercise in frustration. If my AT guns don't start deployed they almost certainly won't contribute materially to the ensuing battle.

I remember playing the first battle in Kampfgruppe Engle. You start with a gun, I think already hooked to a Opel or whatever. I can recall wanting to get it set up at the base of the road that leads up the center of the map. There's a low hedge there to put it behind and it would have a perfect keyhole straight to the checkpoint halfway up the map. But what a fiasco, and I finally just gave up. I don't think it ever fully deployed (and I know the limber mechanics). As I recall it kept alternating between limbered and unlimbered and never fired a shot through the battle.

If I have them as part of the scenario design I try to make the best use of them. But if I'm picking my forces I rarely will buy any. The reward doesn't justify the cost, usually.

Edited January 24, 2022 by landser

[Erwin]

6 minutes ago, landser said:

y doctrine is to keyhole whenever it's is possible. No 'pak front' deployment, with fields of fire. Instead, it gets nestled where it has a very narrow avenue to shoot, the keyhole concept.

Yes...  +1   Make it as hard as possible for more than one enemy unit to fire back at an AT gun.  Ideally one wants a tank to enter a very restricted kill zone and get KIA with no other units having any LOS to the AT - then another tank enter that zone and gets KIA etc.

But, the scenario usually needs to be long (90 mins+) to allow time for embarking and deploying.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Erwin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

AT Guns work particularly well in combination with fortifcations.....A length of barbed wire, a TRP and a single unit of Mixed Mines can make for a devastatingly effective 'urban ambush' in combination with a keyholed AT Gun & a HMG (a mortar or two never hurts either).