Tanks don´t engage small guns with main gun

[Drifter]

Hi there,

Has anyone had this happen?;

I have a tank turning a corner, when it suddenly takes a hit: "upper hull hit - no damage". This happens three times, until the crew identifies the threat. and designates it "light gun?".

My problem now is, that the tank (a Comet)doesn´t engage this light gun with its main gun - only with mg fire.

After 2 more shots from the light gun, my tank explodes - the AI didn´t do any evasive maneuvering.

Okay, I have another tank lined up, this time the light gun is going to feel my wrath. NOT! My next tank (a firefly) doesn´t have LOS, but I order it to move forward just a few meters, and tell it to engage the light gun position with its main gun. As soon as my tank is within LOS, the "fire with your main gun order" is apparently cancelled, and the same thing happens again:

My Firefly engages the light gun only with the bow mg... Kabooooom, one more tank lost......

Has anybody else experienced this?

Shouldn´t a tank crew deem a "light gun?" a threat to itself, and therefore engage it with the main gun?

I find that guns are very hard to destroy by mg fire alone - it takes a well-placed shell or two!

Opinions please!

best regards

Soren S.

[Phoenix]

Have not had that happen to me. My tanks engage any kind of "gun" with the main gun.

[This message has been edited by Phoenix (edited 09-06-2000).]

[jshandorf]

I have seen my tank engage target with only the MG at times, but usually these targets are infantry so it is not that big of a deal.

Personally I feel the tank should ALWAYS engage the highest threat with the main gun no matter what it is UNTIL you tell it to NOT use the main gun.

Maybe this can be changed? Not sure....

Jeff

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

I have seen my tank engage target with only the MG at times, but usually these targets are infantry so it is not that big of a deal.

Personally I feel the tank should ALWAYS engage the highest threat with the main gun no matter what it is UNTIL you tell it to NOT use the main gun.

Maybe this can be changed? Not sure....

Jeff

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Sometimes the MG is more effective than an HE round, which is why the Tank commander will use the MG in leiu of the main gun. The ratio of MG ammo to Main gun ammo is factored in as well.

------------------

I cannot eat these eggs, they are of completely different sizes.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-06-2000).]

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

Why? Sometimes the MG is more effective than an HE round, which is why the Tank commander will use the MG in leiu of the main gun. The ratio of MG ammo to Main gun ammo is factored in as well.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Becuase I have seen the AI make really dumb mistakes. Sometimes targets that should be engaged with the Main Gun sometimes jsut aren't. Why? I don't know... It just doesn't. I would like to see the tank always engage a primary target threat with the main gun.

Saving the HE rounds isn't going to matter much when your tank is dead because it didn't use them.

Jeff

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Drifter wrote:

Has anyone had this happen?;

I have a tank turning a corner, when it suddenly takes a hit: "upper hull hit - no damage". This happens three times, until the crew identifies the threat. and designates it "light gun?".

My problem now is, that the tank (a Comet)doesn´t engage this light gun with its main gun - only with mg fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I haven't seen this behaviour either against guns. In some scenarios I have noticed the Firefly has no HE rounds, don't know about the Comet, perhaps this is why it didn't engage with the main gun?

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Why? Becuase I have seen the AI make really dumb mistakes. Sometimes targets that should be engaged with the Main Gun sometimes jsut aren't. Why? I don't know... It just doesn't. I would like to see the tank always engage a primary target threat with the main gun.

Saving the HE rounds isn't going to matter much when your tank is dead because it didn't use them.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German Panzer SOP was to engage infantry targets with MG fire unless they were dug in, in trees or in buildings. Are you saying the Germans did not have a clue? Or that on the basis of limited information that you the player know better than the TAC-AI in this case? Because the TAC-AI makes its decisions based on a deeper understanding of the chance to hit and lethality involved.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-06-2000).]

[109 Gustav]

Didn't the Germans usually carry less AP ammo than the allies, especially their assault guns? If your tank was out of AP ammo, using the mg against infantry would probably be a better choice than firing antitank rounds.

------------------

There is nothing certain about war except that one side won't win.

-Ian Hamilton

[IntelWeenie]

I just wish my tanks wouldn't fire their MGs at infantry halfway across the map....

------------------

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

Didn't the Germans usually carry less AP ammo than the allies, especially their assault guns? If your tank was out of AP ammo, using the mg against infantry would probably be a better choice than firing antitank rounds.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

StuGs at this point in the war due to their main role being anti-tank carried the 50/50 mix of Pzgr and Sprgr (APHE and HE) that Panzers such as the Mark IV, Panther and Tiger carried.

You're correct in the case of such Veh as the Brumbar, StuH and Sturmtiger though.

------------------

I cannot eat these eggs, they are of completely different sizes.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-06-2000).]

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

German Panzer SOP was to engage infantry targets with MG fire unless they were dug in, in trees or in buildings. Are you saying the Germans did not have a clue? Or that on the basis of limited information that you the player know better than the TAC-AI in this case? Because the TAC-AI makes its decisions based on a deeper understanding of the chance to hit and lethality involved.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, you actually believe little Germans inside your computer are making TAC-AI decisions?

Okay... Lets separate reality with the game, alright?

In real life a human can make those decisions. I am not arguing that.

In the game the AI screws up sometimes and doesn't fire at threats with the main gun that are real threats that can kill the tank. Period. To rectify this the tank should use the main gun until you tell it not to. Simple as that.

Also, are you saying that if I had infantry in the open and as a TC I would only use the MGs on them? Your nuts! Blow them away I think would be the correct assessment here. Use all your firepower to the maximum effectiveness to destroy the enemy. That would include I believe the Main Gun.

In combat you never know how long you are going to survive so make an impact when you can and be decisive.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-06-2000).]

[Abbott]

The vehicle mounted MG's acquire the target first. Then there is a bit of a delay as the main gun is brought to bear. Could this delay be what you noticed?

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott:

The vehicle mounted MG's acquire the target first. Then there is a bit of a delay as the main gun is brought to bear. Could this delay be what you noticed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nahh.... My tank will engage a foxholed infantry unit and just sit there shooting the MG. It does nothing else. What if the tank IDs the infantry wrong and it is actually an AT team, well then you have one dead tank.

I have yet in a battle for a tank to run out of HE rounds. Mind you I have come very close but every round fired at an enemy target is not a round wasted IMO.

Jeff

[pzvg]

Boy you can really spot the REMF's arount here

I've seen PEOPLE, of the temporarily alive variety, do the same stupid things the TacAi does, so it's not that far off the mark, Also consider this, a small gun has a gunshield that's about 2-3 foot square, if you don't have that old reliable, "close is good enough" HE, You probably wouldn't stake your life on pegging it with an AP round, MG's have a higher volume of fire,are capable of suppression,(hard to fire a gun while you're eating dirt) and have that endearing quality beloved by panicked troops the world over, spray-n-pray, your tankers were too ballsy, shoulda reversed out instead trying to engage, but no dumber than any other dead tankers.

------------------

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Wow, you actually believe little Germans inside your computer are making TAC-AI decisions?

Okay... Lets separate reality with the game, alright?

In real life a human can make those decisions. I am not arguing that.

In the game the AI screws up sometimes and doesn't fire at threats with the main gun that are real threats that can kill the tank. Period. To rectify this the tank should use the main gun until you tell it not to. Simple as that.

Also, are you saying that if I had infantry in the open and as a TC I would only use the MGs on them? Your nuts! Blow them away I think would be the correct assessment here. Use all your firepower to the maximum effectiveness to destroy the enemy. That would include I believe the Main Gun.

In combat you never know how long you are going to survive so make an impact when you can and be decisive.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So again your saying you want the game not to represent the tactics used by the Armies of the time. What you want is WW2 as Jeff sees it, you ignore the fact that the game models correct SOP. You're also saying that a HE shell from the main gun would have done a better job than just the MG fire which is pure conjecture when seen in the light of German experience in Nth Africa were below 500m the MG-34 with AP ammo was deadly vs. the crew and gun shields of British anti-tank guns and howitzers. 'This was confirmed by British reports that the 2pdr anti tank gun that had a 5/16 inch (7.9mm) thick armour shield which kept ordinary (Ball) small arms fire but did not repel AP bullets fired from the German tanks machineguns. When anti-tank guns held their fire until German tanks approached to within 600 yds, the crews were frequently knocked out by machinegun fire, which penetrated their shields', (Jentz 1998:P, 54). You are still operating under the assumption that HE shells are inherently more effective than MG fire, which is false when seen in the light that the TAC-AI knows the figures of the to hit and to kill and with the addition of vaunted fuzzy logic the TC of the tank makes his decision.

What information do you have that proves British and German training and battle field knowledge wrong? Because right now all you have brought to this is 'I think, I want and I feel'.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-06-2000).]

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg:

Boy you can really spot the REMF's arount here

I've seen PEOPLE, of the temporarily alive variety, do the same stupid things the TacAi does, so it's not that far off the mark, Also consider this, a small gun has a gunshield that's about 2-3 foot square, if you don't have that old reliable, "close is good enough" HE, You probably wouldn't stake your life on pegging it with an AP round, MG's have a higher volume of fire,are capable of suppression,(hard to fire a gun while you're eating dirt) and have that endearing quality beloved by panicked troops the world over, spray-n-pray, your tankers were too ballsy, shoulda reversed out instead trying to engage, but no dumber than any other dead tankers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree with the idea behind suppressing ATs and AT-guns with MG fire but in the game I have not seen this reliably demonstrated to me.

I have seen an AT team stand up in the face of MG fire from about 30 meters out and lob one into my Panzer IV. The whole time I was screaming (yes, at the monitor) “Fire the frickin’ gun you fools! Fire!”

Also I have targeted an AT-gun with NO LESS than 6 squads to suppress them so that a tank of mine could make a back track behind a reverse slope, but the AT-gun just fires away.

If this suppression thing actually worked I wouldn’t mind my tanks deciding for themselves on whether or not to fire the Main Gun.

Not to entice flaming but I recall in CC that AT teams were pretty much dead AT teams after the first or second shot. It was utterly amazing if they got a third shot off before being vaporized by the enemy tank.

Most AT teams in CM have a pretty good survivability. I recall one AT team firing an errant shot at one of the THREE Panzer IVs I pulled up into a a ridge line. The AT-team was proabably about 80 meters out and ALL THREE Panzer IVs opened up on the AT-team with MGs and, thankfully, thier Main Guns. The team not only survived they managed to get a couple more shots off. Luckily all misses.

Jeff

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Also, are you saying that if I had infantry in the open and as a TC I would only use the MGs on them? Your nuts! Blow them away I think would be the correct assessment here. Use all your firepower to the maximum effectiveness to destroy the enemy. That would include I believe the Main Gun.

In combat you never know how long you are going to survive so make an impact when you can and be decisive.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I can't begin to remember which thread it was in, but I do remember a post from BTS that there are often cases in which a tank will stick with MGs not only because they perceive it as the most effective weapon, but because it in fact is the most effective weapon. They pointed out that many tank guns were specifically designed for killing other tanks, and that AFV HE shells weren't necessarily all that devestating against infantry targets. Tanks designed for infantry support, or as assault guns, such as StuH42s or the Shermans with the 105s, were probably more effective with their HE ammo, and might well behave differently. Also, this is a little foggier in my memory, but I believe they made a point that the TacAI will look at ammo availability, and make some choices when HE rounds fall below a certain point. As far as not targeting 'light guns', I don't know, I've never had a tank not use its main gun on any kind of gun that it had spotted, unless it was only armed with AP ammo. Then it just MGed the heck out of them.

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[19 Echo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Most AT teams in CM have a pretty good survivability. I recall one AT team firing an errant shot at one of the THREE Panzer IVs I pulled up into a a ridge line. The AT-team was proabably about 80 meters out and ALL THREE Panzer IVs opened up on the AT-team with MGs and, thankfully, thier Main Guns. The team not only survived they managed to get a couple more shots off. Luckily all misses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen that too. I've also seen AT teams and guns wiped out in one shot. It tends to balance out in the long run.

I like your story about yelling at the monitor. I was on the other side of a similar situation. Tried to sneak a Schreck team around the flank of a Sherman. Sherman spotted them at 102 meters and fired coax. The Schreck team fired a few shots, which missed badly. The Sherman just kept firing an occasional burst of coax. Finally my Schreck scored a hit (lower hull, no damage). The tank's next shot was with the main gun. I just had to laugh. Granted, they were at the extreme edge of the Schreck's range, but they were lucky that hit didn't do more damage. If that were a real crew, I bet they'd have used HE against anything resembling an AT team for the rest of the war. Anyway, back to the original topic, I'd say I've seen about half and half, tanks engaging guns with coax or the main gun. I've seen coax successfully suppress a gun crew, but sometimes it backfires, as when a "light gun" turns out to be a 17-pounder with steel-nerved crew.

-- Mike Zeares

[Drifter]

Hi all,

Wow, happy to see so much response to my question. What an involved forum this is!

I didn´t do any research about doctrine etc. before I started this tread. I can see there are differing opinions as to how the crew should react to a threat, such as a yet unidentified "light gun?"

I just thought it logical that the tank should engage such a real threat to itself with the most powerful weapon in its arsenal - the main gun.

In the turn immediately following the situation that prompted my post, I had two engineer squads, and one company HQ (all full strentgh) charge the gun while firing at it. This didn´t even suppress the gun crew sufficiently, to hinder it from shooting at my next (third) tank that joined the assault. The gun crew still managed to fire two shots at my centurion, while being shot at by my two squads and an HQ within 9 meters of the gun.

My point is this; if two squads and an HQ within close range AND a centurion firing it´s main gun at the guncrew is not enough to suppress it, I think it´s time to whip out the big gun i.e. the main gun.

I have been unable to search out BTS´s comments to similar posts, and would very much appreciate if any of you ´veterans´ on this forum could give the link to me.

There may well be a good explanation why my tank doesn´t engage with the main gun, but until proven, I think it´s a strange behaviour on the part of my tank crews.

just my two cents.

Best regards

Soren Svendsen

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Drifter:

Hi all,

I just thought it logical that the tank should engage such a real threat to itself with the most powerful weapon in its arsenal - the main gun.

Best regards

Soren Svendsen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but that is only logical if the main gun is the most powerful weapon to use against Infantry and anti-tank guns. The fact that the MG's and 2 sections are not suppressing the crew does not mean that the High velocity gun of the Comet will be more effective. I think you’re still playing under the assumption that the main gun is a magic wand. High velocity and low velocity gun were designed for different criteria and battlefield effects.

------------------

I cannot eat these eggs, they are of completely different sizes.

[Drifter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

I think you’re still playing under the assumption that the main gun is a magic wand. High velocity and low velocity gun were designed for different criteria and battlefield effects.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why, yes I´m operating under the assumption that the main gun is a magic wand! Are you here to tell me otherwise?

Please tell me which spell the TC should recite while waving the main gun in mysterious patterns to lower the guncrews defense! (insert smiley)

No, honestly I´m fairly new to wargaming, and - I think - just assumed that a big gun would mean more damage to a not too well shielded crew. Well, I have an open mind, and I´m prepared to change my views as I´m learning a lot from this forum every day.

Thanks for all your replies.

best regards

Soren Svendsen

[Jarmo]

I had a StuH encounter an unidentified "light gun?" about 200 meters

away. I ordered it to target it with a main gun. After the StuH

missed the first shot, it decided to rather target "infantry?" right

next to the gun with the main gun, and just squirt a few MG rounds

towards the gun.

The "gun?" was firing at the StuH, the shots ricocheted.

No way is the 105mm main gun (with almost all HE remaining) less

effective than the MG. And even if that'd be the case, why not

use both?

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Bastables]

In Spielberger book on the Sturmgeschuetz and its variants, there is an interesting combat report upon the early StuG IV and the immense problems they had in dealing with infantry when they had only the Magic wand aka main gun with HE and the top mounted MG which could only be fired from the outside. This report stressed the need for a coaxial MG and or the new remote controlled ones to be immediately fitted to the then new StuG IV to redress its poor ability in engaging infantry at ranges below 300m. (No I’m not going to do a quote, that’s all you’ll get from me. Do your own frigging work!)

Another aside is the infamous deployment of the Elephant without bow mounted MGs and its corresponding losses to infantry attacks during operation citadel. The Germans interestingly did not state at any point during the rebuild that increasing the number of Spgr/HE rounds for the 8.8cm would handily eliminate all infantry in the general area. No the emphasis was placed on putting an internal MG so they could kill the infantry.

Now the common thread is that these high velocity guns are not magic wands. When one designs for a stated aim, in this case killing other armoured veh other criteria fall by the wayside. The 10.5cm gun in the StuH is a low velocity howitzer; the 77mm actual calibre 76.2mm aka 17pdr is a high velocity gun. Draw your own conclusions and then see if you can find any proof that refutes the little I’ve so far put up. Or you can continue to side step it and continue whining about the “ineffectiveness of main guns vs. infantry” backed by your own subjective belief of WW2, which is what you’ve been doing at any rate.

------------------

I cannot eat these eggs, they are of completely different sizes.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

Or you can continue to side step it and continue whining about the “ineffectiveness of main guns vs. infantry” backed by your own subjective belief of WW2, which is what you’ve been doing at any rate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you hit the hammer with a nail, or something..

We (who the hell are "we" anyway) are not complaining about

the ineffectivenes of the main gun. I for one am quite pleased

at the way it kills my enemies.

We are complaining because the AI is unwilling to use it.

Now tell me this. If MG's were so wonderously effective, why bother

installing the main gun at all? Wouldn't StuH be more effective

against infantry with the main gur removed, the extra space

used for MG ammo?

The reason why MG is essential for tanks, is fast moving

infantry at close range. Or even at longer range. The key

word being "moving".

Against stationary targets. You'd use the main gun.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Drifter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

In Spielberger book on the Sturmgeschuetz and its variants, there is an interesting combat report upon the early StuG IV and the immense problems they had in dealing with infantry when they had only the Magic wand aka main gun with HE and the top mounted MG which could only be fired from the outside. This report stressed the need for a coaxial MG and or the new remote controlled ones to be immediately fitted to the then new StuG IV to redress its poor ability in engaging infantry at ranges below 300m. (No I’m not going to do a quote, that’s all you’ll get from me. Do your own frigging work!)

Another aside is the infamous deployment of the Elephant without bow mounted MGs and its corresponding losses to infantry attacks during operation citadel. The Germans interestingly did not state at any point during the rebuild that increasing the number of Spgr/HE rounds for the 8.8cm would handily eliminate all infantry in the general area. No the emphasis was placed on putting an internal MG so they could kill the infantry.

Now the common thread is that these high velocity guns are not magic wands. When one designs for a stated aim, in this case killing other armoured veh other criteria fall by the wayside. The 10.5cm gun in the StuH is a low velocity howitzer; the 77mm actual calibre 76.2mm aka 17pdr is a high velocity gun. Draw your own conclusions and then see if you can find any proof that refutes the little I’ve so far put up. Or you can continue to side step it and continue whining about the “ineffectiveness of main guns vs. infantry” backed by your own subjective belief of WW2, which is what you’ve been doing at any rate.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Bastables,

I don´t know if you´re referring to mine or Jarmo´s post, but that doesn´t really matter, since we have the same problem.

I also don´t know if you´re even responding in the right thread. I don´t see anybody whining, and I certainly haven´t heard the sound of someone sidestepping I merely see questions being asked by someone not as experienced with tank warfare as you.

My original posting regards tanks not engaging an enemy gun. Your replies are about main (tank)guns not being as efficient in dealing with infantry as mg´s?? Are guns and infantry the same thing??

I just had high hopes that my tank would be able to render the enemy gun useless by damaging it - I really don´t care what happens to the crew, since I´m pretty sure my infantry will know how to dispose of them.

Thanks for your input about the infantry though - good research

Best regards

Soren Svendsen