Tanks don´t engage small guns with main gun

[Bastables]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The creation of the StuG was based on the infantry's needs in engaging strong points, trench works, and buildings ete. In some ways this was already preformed by the wheeled 7,5cm IG and 15cm sIGs, of course the advantages of having equivalent weapons mounted in an armoured chassis i.e. increased protection and mobility. Sure they killed infantry and at the longer ranges were more effective than the MG, but in many circumstances the MG was the better weapon for the job.

Oh and a masterful use of the strawman argument with the MG armed StuH.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-08-2000).]

[Bastables]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's late a night so I decided its me v.s. the world

Regards Keay

[Drifter]

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

It's late a night so I decided its me v.s. the world

Regards Keay

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Bastables,

You´ve got the odds stacked against you on that one - let me know how that battle goes

Goodnight to you!

best regards

Soren Svendsen

[IntelWeenie]

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

The creation of the StuG was based on the infantry's needs in engaging strong points, trench works, and buildings ete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would a "light gun?" not qualify as a strong point? Would self-preservation never enter the equation (which I think is the main issue here)? IMHO, no one has a problem with AFV's use of MGs against infantry, just against guns.

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

Oh and a masterful use of the strawman argument with the MG armed StuH.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? Seems to me you were the one that brought up the question of infantry. Can you tell us what German doctrine was when engaging AT guns with tanks/assault guns?

<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”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought that the topic of the thread is more like "main guns vs. anti-tank guns".

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

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

-Dudley Do-right

[JoePrivate]

Hi Drifter,

You never said what kind of ammo loadout the Comet and Firefly had. I'm curious because it may have something to do with them not engaging the light gun with their main gun, something I have yet to see. Thanks.

[jshandorf]

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

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).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When are you going to learn to seperate reality and a game, Bastables? I could care less what history has to say about the effectivness of MG fire on infantry. Quit quoting it, it's pointless. What I am referring to is the actual game we play. When I watch MG fire on infantry in the open it doesn't nearly come close to reality.

Considering that I want my tank to use ALL of the weapons at it's disposal to eliminate the target. Period.

I can watch my tank shoot at infantry in foxholes with it's MGs until I am blue in the face and those infantry will NEVER move. Try it. Load up and game and try it. Put some infantry in a foxhole at 150 meters from a tank. Have the tank shoot it's MG fire at them. Now wait for them to run from the cover of that foxhole. (Hint: it's not going to happen.) NOW tell the tank to fire the main gun on the fox hole. I would predict it will take less than 10 shots before the infantry will get up and haul ass out of that fox hole. THAT is what I am talking about.

One more point... Have you ever seen an MG42 fire for real? I have. I stood about 10 feet from one when it was unloading into a car at about 50 meters. All I have to say is that I would never ever want to be on the recieving end of that weapon. It is devastating. Watching MG fire in CM I just don't get that same feeling.

Jeff

[aka kingtiger]

Does anyone remember the scene in "The Bridge Too Far" where the German AT guns are ASSAULTED by artillery 155mm. The Pak43 crews return to the guns and drill several Shermans. Then ASSAULTED by the tanks, machines guns and light arms. The Pak43's continue to fire. And finally ASSAULTED by air?

Of course most of us remember!

Does anyone remember "The Tanks are Coming". The scene where the Shermans are coming around the river bend and encountering a well camouflaged 88? The lead tank is immobilized immediately. "Sullizan" goes into Bravado mode and heads out into the open against all logic, training and orders. Of course "Sulli" takes out the 88.

Some of us remember!

But how many have faced an anti-tank gun during WWII?

Few if any in this board.

My point is this: CM models what happens during a battle/skirmish/war or whatever really well. Better than anything I have ever seen.

In CM, I have seen massive artillery barrages leave anti-tank guns unscathed. I have seen HE at fourty meters fired by a Stug IV on a machine-gunner in a fox hole for 10 straight turns have virtually no effect. And I have seen tank-machine-gun fire supress an AT team instantly.

In reality I would GUESS: some tankers would react immediately, turn and fire HE on any threat. Other tankers would fire HE on select target types without fail. Still others would randomly use HE. Often times direct orders would be disregarded and Tank Commanders would do all sorts of wild-and-crazy stuff.

And lastly I would like to detail my own personal hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical situation with me as main-gunner in a Sherman during WWII.

... the year is 1944, the scene is some relatively hilly, smelly, dirty hellish place somewhere East of Normandy and West of Germany. Richard aka Kingtiger is struggling with diahera and spends most of his time crying and bitching. A recent skirmish has been going on for the past 16 minutes, when some hotshot punk tells us to poke our well-camouflaged, highly fortifed tank out into the open. So with some delay we head out at roughly half-throttle and work our way up closer to the German highly-fortifed, well-camouflaged units. Suddenly, we come around a corner and encounter a light gun. Someone yells #$%@$%@. Someone yells - Traverse the gun, 11 O'Clock - "Target-Light Gun". Richard -" Target light Gun" Richard - "Target the &^^$R#& Gun" Richard says, "What gun? I can't see the gun? Mommie! Mommie!" Basically Richard aka Kingtiger (crying and bitching) cracks under fire and nothing happens. Someone continues firing the machine gun and Richard passes out. That is a likely scenario for me.

I'm no tanker. I couldn't begin to guess what would always happen. I don't think anyone could. But Combat Mission sure does a damn good job of it.

Richard Kalajian

[This message has been edited by aka kingtiger (edited 09-08-2000).]

[ironcross]

i think this point was discussed as well about sighting from a tank,have you tried to look out of a tanks vision slit when closed down and moving? with smoke in the air even wind rustling bushes,you would be hard pressed to see anything thats why m.g fire is used ,firstly as a means of suppression secondly.main gun ammo may be more important to use when a hard target is seen.

In a lot of cases i think that this is what the a1 is trying to simulate rather than having it fire and knockout everything like something out of a movie

[Drifter]

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

Hi Drifter,

You never said what kind of ammo loadout the Comet and Firefly had. I'm curious because it may have something to do with them not engaging the light gun with their main gun, something I have yet to see. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi JoePrivate,

Good point! I just checked the setup for the scenario (I can tell you which one if you wish -just don´t want to spoil anything for you)

The Firefly had 42 HE shells (+ AP rounds)

The Comet had 34 HE shells (+ AP and Tungsten rounds)

I might have used a few shells by the time I faced the gun, but certainly no more than a few.

best regards

Soren Svendsen

[PzKpfw 1]

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

.

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?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have PzKpfw IV's Panther's etc useing main guns to engage Inf all the time as well as AT guns, as long as CMs conditions are met they will fire the main gun. More below

The main gun was put their to kill enemy AFVs, its HE purpose was secondary. Look at it this way, the MG puts out a continious stream of lead, typicly over an large area at waist height. The main gun fires 1 HE round at a much lower ROF with its limited shrapnel effects due to its small size.

In CM terms you have a squad spread all over a 20m hex in CM, what you see in the graphic representation is a clump of 3 guys representing 8 - 12 men & how the TAC AI sees them is diferent as it see's all 8 - 12 positioned thru the 20m hex.

So basicly you have the AI MG spraying lead at multiple targets in the squad & the Main Gun fireing 1 HE round at 1 member or if lucky 2 members reletively close to each other The AI then picks the most effective weapon Ie, If the tanks MG's is more lethal in this instance, as in wound & pin Sqd members compared to the HE capability. If the MG pins the squad, this incrases the % to hit & the lethalty of the HE round increases over the MG, then the main gun will engage.

The MG was put on the tank to supress infanty. The HE was put in the tank to destroy fixed positions. & as Bastables posted the MG vs AT guns at 500ms or less is deadlier in CM then the the Main guns HE round as it will penetrate the gun sheilds etc.

The M4 75mm Sherman is an great example of a tanks main purpose changeing, Ie its 75mm AP capability was useless vs German Tiger's & Panthers but its HE capability was considered excelent, so it switched roles when the M4 76mm's began arriveing, it dealt with Inf in prepared positions & generaly carried an WP round in the chamber while on the move in case an AT gun or tank was met wherein the 75mm would fire the WP at it & withdraw while the 76mm's armed Shermans with their inferior HE capability dealt with tanks. But they both engaged moveing inf etc with MGs as well.

The StuH was developed as a close supt Infantry weapon, to deal with fixed positions or in urban fighting as experienced in Stalingrad. Its main gun was by no means effective vs moving disperced Inf except in supression. If the Inf bunches up, you have better results.

7,5cm, 76mm, & 17lb HE ammunition was not that effective vs inf except in certian situations, and the 17lb didn't even have an HE round till Sept 1944.

Then consider that even today the SOP for the US tanks vs Inf is still to engage Inf with machine guns not the main 120mm gun. I had the opertunity to discuss main gug vs MG effectiveness this with an Col who served in the Gulf during the War, for SP2 - SP3 development, as the same argument came up in testing & development Ie, testers asked why arn't the tanks fireing their HEAT-MP at Inf.

The Col who's tanks had actualy engaged Iraqi infantry confirmed that they used the 50Cal & 7.62 MGs vs Infantry no HEAT-MP round's were fired in his Bn's tanks vs dug in or dispersed moveing Inf unless an hard target such as a bunker was encountered. SOP was blast away with the MGs & call in Arty.

We had a similar discussion over the AI 76mm not useing APCR-T vs a Panther at 300 - 500ms not long ago and it was basicly because the AI knew that the M79 APCBC could defeat the Panther's front turret @ those ranges, Ie it decided that the APCBC had a better % to kill the Panther then the APCR-T.

And remeber though CM may be a game it has been programed to reflect reality as in actual tactics used by its respective forces.

Regards, John Waters

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

"die verdammte Jabos".

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-08-2000).]

[Drifter]

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

i think this point was discussed as well about sighting from a tank,have you tried to look out of a tanks vision slit when closed down and moving? with smoke in the air even wind rustling bushes,you would be hard pressed to see anything thats why m.g fire is used ,firstly as a means of suppression secondly.main gun ammo may be more important to use when a hard target is seen.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Ironcross,

No, I haven´t tried to look out the vision slits of a tank, but I would still suspect that it requires as much vision to aim the mg, as it does to aim the main gun!

But maybe the guy aiming the mg is not in the same position as the main gunner?? Who´s actually firing the mg in a tank?

best regards

Soren Svendsen

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

I have PzKpfw IV's Panther's etc useing main guns to engage Inf all the time as well as AT guns, as long as CMs conditions are met they will fire the main gun. More below

The main gun was put their to kill enemy AFVs, its HE purpose was secondary. Look at it this way, the MG puts out a continious stream of lead, typicly over an large area at waist height. The main gun fires 1 HE round at a much lower ROF with its limited shrapnel effects due to its small size.

In CM terms you have a squad spread all over a 20m hex in CM, what you see in the graphic representation is a clump of 3 guys representing 8 - 12 men & how the TAC AI sees them is diferent as it see's all 8 - 12 positioned thru the 20m hex.

So basicly you have the AI MG spraying lead at multiple targets in the squad & the Main Gun fireing 1 HE round at 1 member or if lucky 2 members reletively close to each other The AI then picks the most effective weapon Ie, If the tanks MG's is more lethal in this instance, as in wound & pin Sqd members, vs the HE capability then if the MG pins the squad, and incrases the % to hit & the lethalty of the HE increases over the MG the main gun will engage.

The MG was put on the tank to supress infanty. The HE was put in the tank to destroy fixed positions. & as Bastables posted the MG vs AT guns at 500ms or less is deadlier in CM then the the Main guns HE round as it will penetrate the gun sheilds etc.

The M4 75mm Sherman is an great example of a tanks main purpose changeing, Ie its 75mm AP capability was useless vs German Tiger's & Panthers but its HE capability was considered excelent, so it switched roles when the M4 76mm's began arriveing, it dealt with Inf in prepared positions & generaly carried an WP round in the chamber while on the move in case an AT gun or tank was met wherein the 75mm would fire the WP at it & withdraw while the 76mm's armed Shermans with their inferior HE capability dealt with tanks. But they both engaged moveing inf etc with MGs as well.

The StuH was developed as a close supt Infantry weapon, to deal with fixed positions or in urban fighting as experienced in Stalingrad. Its main gun was by no means effective vs moving disperced Inf except in supression. If the Inf bunches up, you have better results.

7,5cm, 76mm, & 17lb HE ammunition was not that effective vs inf except in certian situations, and the 17lb didn't even have an HE round till Sept 1944.

Then consider that even today the SOP for the US tanks vs Inf is still to engage Inf with machine guns not the main 120mm gun. I had the opertunity to discuss this with an Col in the Gulf during SP2 - SP3 development as the same argument Ie, why arnt the tanks fireing their HEAT-MP at Inf. The Col who's tanks had actualy engaged Iraqi infantry confirmed that they used the 50Cal & 7.62 MGs vs Infantry no HEAT-MP round's were fired in his Bn's tanks vs dug in or dispersed moveing Inf unless an hard target such as a bunker was encountered.

SOP was blast away with the MGs & call in Arty. He Also commented that the MGs were much more effective then HEAT-MP vs Infantry.

We had a similar discussion over the AI 76mm not useing APCR-T vs a Panther at 300 - 500ms not long ago and it was basicly because the AI knew that the M79 APCBC could defeat the Panther's front turret @ those ranges, Ie it decided that the APCBC had a better % to kill the Panther then the APCR-T.

Regards, John Waters

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

"die verdammte Jabos".

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-08-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree that in REAL LIFE MGs are more effective than HE rounds vs Infantry, but I have NOT seen this in CM. For the same reason I have continually pointed out again and again. Doesn't anyone actually READ my posts before responding?

Until MGs become more effective VS infantry in CM I want the main gun to fire at ALL infantry.

I can send anyone who asks a movie of a battle where shooting MG fire at the infantry is a practice in futility and that it is only until the HE comes in that I actually damage the foxholed infantry and move them out.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-08-2000).]

[Bastables]

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

When are you going to learn to seperate reality and a game, Bastables? I could care less what history has to say about the effectivness of MG fire on infantry. Quit quoting it, it's pointless. What I am referring to is the actual game we play. When I watch MG fire on infantry in the open it doesn't nearly come close to reality.

Considering that I want my tank to use ALL of the weapons at it's disposal to eliminate the target. Period.

I can watch my tank shoot at infantry in foxholes with it's MGs until I am blue in the face and those infantry will NEVER move. Try it. Load up and game and try it. Put some infantry in a foxhole at 150 meters from a tank. Have the tank shoot it's MG fire at them. Now wait for them to run from the cover of that foxhole. (Hint: it's not going to happen.) NOW tell the tank to fire the main gun on the fox hole. I would predict it will take less than 10 shots before the infantry will get up and haul ass out of that fox hole. THAT is what I am talking about.

One more point... Have you ever seen an MG42 fire for real? I have. I stood about 10 feet from one when it was unloading into a car at about 50 meters. All I have to say is that I would never ever want to be on the recieving end of that weapon. It is devastating. Watching MG fire in CM I just don't get that same feeling.

Jeff

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You don't know what my experiences with the sharp of the end of the knife is mate...

And yes in the game I find the opposite to be true, MG fire from an MG42/LMG team will over the course of a turn will suppress the section within a foxhole in the game. Also if MG fire is ineffective in game this should be increased, my personal experience with the game indicates to me that CM models this correctly. This is of course assuming that the MGs in the German veh are about of equivalent values in game to the MG42 fired by the LMG teams, with the reservation that the MG 34 is the main weapon mounted in armoured veh of the Reich and not the MG 42.

Well I habe had no problems with either various UK tanks or German Panzers when foxholes come up, the main gun fires on em.

Also CM attempts to model real ww2 warfare with reservations inherent in a computer simulation. Your arguments that the main gun should be used more because it’s more powerful in game would actually indicate a need to tone down the values to insure correct historical results. But of course I seem to have found no problems with this particular aspect that CM models. If anything it accords with my own experiences and more importantly the written records of the armies of the period, in that the high velocity guns are not super infantry killers that is dramatically indicated with my game experiences with the various 7.5cm high velocity guns that the Germans use. Obviously we are arguing from different epistemologies, which makes agreement impossible insomuch as we are arguing past each other. Be that as it may you should really be talking to BTS if you think this is a problem, I of course disagree that it is a problem. Its not rock, scissors and paper. Neither MGs nor large calibre guns grant a immediate or linear affect, which I believe CM, models admirably.

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

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

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-08-2000).]

[ironcross]

sven,your correct about the vision for the commander and gunner, thats why mg fire is more to be classed in real life as suppression rather than killing (unless the target is perfectly targetted)mg fire especally after a long engagment due to fouling of the barrel and a tendency to burn out can really be classed a akeeping ones heads down.

mg fire is perfect when a target is obvious

such as the beaches of omaha, but when in a close built up area more for suppression

[IntelWeenie]

I thought I'd repost this to try and bring the discussion back on track a bit.

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

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.

*snip*

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!

best regards

Soren S.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, putting all considerations of tanks vs. infantry aside, what about tanks vs. AT guns?

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

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

-Dudley Do-right

[This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 09-08-2000).]

[Guest rune]

Let me try guys...

Jeff,

You want to go AWAY from real tactics, based on your observation of an mg firing at a car, and the way AT guns were eliminated in CC.

Your thinking on what is open is what needs to change. Open terrain in CM isn't a billards table, it has dips and small cover a squad can hide behind. A unit in the open is 12 men in a 20 meter area. If a mg opens fire on them, the squad looks as it is standing, but is an abstraction. The actual squad members are taking cover moving whatever to get out of the line of fire. A foxhole is a series of foxholes the squad is hiding in, so yes, it is harder to break a unit out of a dug in position rather with an MG then a tank gun SOMETIMES.

There are plenty of people here and on the beta team with actual combat experience that says it is modelled correctly. I feel it is modelled very well. I don't want the game to be changed because you don't think it feels correct. I'll stick with a game that tries to emulate real tactics, even if we get a hiccup once in a while.

This is not to say the game is perfect...it isn't. However, I don't think this is an area that needs tweaking. I think we will agree to disagree.

Rune

[This message has been edited by rune (edited 09-08-2000).]

[jshandorf]

All I am trying to say is that IF the tank that is engaging the Infantry, AT-Team, AT-Gun, or whatever "thinks" that the MG will suffice to eliminate, suppress, or pin the target then is should, but if it doesn't then use the main gun.

With my experience with MGs, in observation and firing, (In a non-military sitiuation) I know that there isn't much of a "fudge" factor with MGs. If you see a soft target with no hard cover between you and the business end of the MG you will KILL/INCAP/WOUND, or severly mess up whatever you shoot at, given it is within effective range.

So with that said, the behavior I see tanks demonstrate, sometimes mind you, in battle in CM runs counter to this knowledge. Therefore, the tank should engage with the Main Gun, whether or not this is historical.

Basically if I could crawl into the the game and be a TC and if I saw that my MG fire was not suppresing that AT-Gun, AT-Team, Infantry charging me, or whatever, I WOULD fire the main gun. Hell, it's either me or them, who cares if I use a few HE rounds. If I live, is all that matters.

Get where I am coming from?

Jeff

[Jarmo]

OK, I did a test scenario.

A flat map, with some woods and some scattered trees at the

german end.

I gave germans 4 105mm howitzers and 4 150mm infantry guns.

Distributed some at open, some at woods and some at scattered

trees.

-----

I first gave allied 12 armored cars.4 M20's, 4 Humbers, and 4 MMG carriers.

First scouted the gun positions with carriers and then engaged them

from 200-500 meters distance.

All cars were KO'd, they managed to kill one gun in open ground.

----

Then I gave the allies 3 jeeps to scout the guns, and 8 Sextons

to engage them.

From the same distance, all guns were killed. One sexton survived.

---

The Sextons did not fare better because improved armor,

as none survived a hit. They fared better because a main

gun is a much better weapon against a gun, than MG. And

thereby should always be used against threatening guns.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[PzKpfw 1]

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

OK, I did a test scenario.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give them tanks.

Regards, John Waters

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

"die verdammte Jabos".

[jshandorf]

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

OK, I did a test scenario.

A flat map, with some woods and some scattered trees at the

german end.

I gave germans 4 105mm howitzers and 4 150mm infantry guns.

Distributed some at open, some at woods and some at scattered

trees.

-----

I first gave allied 12 armored cars.4 M20's, 4 Humbers, and 4 MMG carriers.

First scouted the gun positions with carriers and then engaged them

from 200-500 meters distance.

All cars were KO'd, they managed to kill one gun in open ground.

----

Then I gave the allies 3 jeeps to scout the guns, and 8 Sextons

to engage them.

From the same distance, all guns were killed. One sexton survived.

---

The Sextons did not fare better because improved armor,

as none survived a hit. They fared better because a main

gun is a much better weapon against a gun, than MG. And

thereby should always be used against threatening guns.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what range did you engage them with the sextons?

Jeff

[Jarmo]

As I said, from the same distance.

Scattered, around 3-4 hundred meters.

Mind you, the guns can easily be killed with the cars by racing

right next to them. While a single car can't

reliably suppress

a gun from 30 meters, 3 cars bunched up will

invariably kill

the gun in a few minutes.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[jshandorf]

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

As I said, from the same distance.

Scattered, around 3-4 hundred meters.

Mind you, the guns can easily be killed with the cars by racing

right next to them. While a single car can't

reliably suppress

a gun from 30 meters, 3 cars bunched up will

invariably kill

the gun in a few minutes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From 30 meters out a MG should be able to suppress about anything. Unless the front plate on those AT-Guns provides protection, which is historically inaccurate. At medium to long ranges the front plate on AT guns provides "some" protection but at close range (30meters) most MGs should be able to punch right through that.

That only further proves my point about how MGs are not very realistically portrayed in CM. But hey, as long as it is like that for both sides then it's fair, right?

Jeff

[Jarmo]

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

That only further proves my point about how MGs are not very realistically portrayed in CM. But hey, as long as it is like that for both sides then it's fair, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I feel the same way, but I'm far from being an expert.

I'll just trust those that are and say MG's are OK.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

[bThe Col who's tanks had actualy engaged Iraqi infantry confirmed that they used the 50Cal & 7.62 MGs vs Infantry no HEAT-MP round's were fired in his Bn's tanks vs dug in or dispersed moveing Inf unless an hard target such as a bunker was encountered. SOP was blast away with the MGs & call in Arty.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would point out that HEAT and HE are not the same thing and not intended for similar purposes. HEAT is an anti-armor round where as HE is not. Ask M2/M3 crews if MGs were prefered over 25mm HE and the answer is different.

Cav

[Trooper]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka kingtiger:

Does anyone remember the scene in "The Bridge Too Far" where the German AT guns are ASSAULTED by artillery 155mm. The Pak43 crews return to the guns and drill several Shermans. Then ASSAULTED by the tanks, machines guns and light arms. The Pak43's continue to fire. And finally ASSAULTED by air?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as an aisde, those guns in the initial advance of XXX Corps in 'A Bridge Too Far' are in fact 25lbrs, not 155mm. (Equivalent to about 88mm). (Yes, they're still officially on strength in the Irish army reserves, though fading out...)

As for the PaKs, if anything, they'd be 75mm Pak40s, not PaK43, which I believe are 88mm guns, though I'll admit that since I'm a dedicated rebel and anti-germanophile, my knowledge of German WWII equipment is a bit more lacking.

NTM