PeterNZer Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 There's many units in CM... hehe. But what the hell do some of them do? How do you use them? eg. The Archer! Watchutalkingaboutwillis?! or.. Security teams? Pionners over engineers? difference? those tracked but gunless armored cars? Anyone dragged an AT gun around the field? If you you've used one of these or any of the 'funny' units well and found a good niche for them, please tell us all! At the moment i'm experimenting with that armored car with the 37mm, it's kinda fun, nice and quick.. but not had enough time to say more. PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pionners over engineers? difference?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IMHO, there is no difference, as Pionere is simply the german term to designate Engineers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>those tracked but gunless armored cars?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gunless vehicles are still useful for recon, and generaly fast enough to have good chances of survival. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyone dragged an AT gun around the field?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In large scenarios or even better in operations, this can be useful to redeploy your AT capacities against your ennemy's main attack point, or in the opposite follow your troop's advance. Magnus ------------------ Venez visiter le seul site consacré à Combat Mission en français : Appui-feu http://appui-feu.panzershark.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 OK, I'll bite. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: There's many units in CM... hehe. But what the hell do some of them do? How do you use them? eg. The Archer! Watchutalkingaboutwillis?! or.. Security teams? Pionners over engineers? difference? those tracked but gunless armored cars? Anyone dragged an AT gun around the field? If you you've used one of these or any of the 'funny' units well and found a good niche for them, please tell us all! PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Archers are usless as a tank. Use them like an AT than actually CAN move around the battlefield. AT guns can barely move on their own (some not at all). Hitch them up to a prime mover (truck or HT) to move long distances. Security teams are just a different squad type. Get the CM unit database from CMHQ to see the differences in armament, # of troops, etc. Pioneers and enginners are the same. Not sure what "tracked but gunless armored cars" you mean? Only completely unarmed vehicles I know of are trucks, jeeps and KUBELWAGENS! (oh, and assault boats) ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Hey now. Archers are not useless as a tank. They're just very very very close to useless. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted August 22, 2000 Author Share Posted August 22, 2000 what was the logic behind the archer? Yeah, I guess on an operation where you might start on the defence, picking up AT gun and truck to move it might be a pretty good idea to keep your gun usefull for the entire scenario. Handn't thought of that too much. Hmm any other odd vehicles and stuff people have been scratching their heads over? PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 The rationale behind the Archer was that it allowed them to mount a powerful AT weapon in a vehicle about a year or so before the purpose-designed tanks with that gun would arrive. Trust me, in North Africa you will BLESS the ordinance official who decided to issue Archers as an interim measure until 17-pounder-armed tanks became available. In North Africa it's a choice between a 6 pounder AT gun, a 6 pounder armed tank or an Archer. Which would you pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted August 22, 2000 Author Share Posted August 22, 2000 o that makes sense Actually.. I'm kinda dreading the African campaign.. Pretty much depending on the date.. the technical advantage swung wildly.. correct???? PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Useless units? I haven't played with the Archer but I have found one personal "rule" in the game which is use your units effectively together. Here are some examples Flamethrower + .50 cal jeep Any German Recon + Pumas Sharpshooters + AT teams AT guns + trucks (duh) MG + AT teams Charlie Sheen + Emelio Estevez (oops off subject) There are some others but they have slipped my mind. Later ------------------ Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb -Priest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Priest, How could you forget the Janine Lindemulder and Julia Ann combo? ------------------ CrapGame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Archers were first produced in March 43 and only saw action in October 44. So sadly this is well after North Africa was over. The following is taken from "Armoured Fighting Vehicles" by P Trewhitt, Pub: Demsrey Parr, London 1999. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Archer stemmed from a British decision to increase anti-tank gun calibre from 75mm (6 pdr) to 76.2 mm (17pdr). The new guns were to heavy for tanks then in existance. An interim solution was found by adapting the Valentine tank chassis for use as a tank destroyer. Initial worries about the rear-facing gun proved groundless. The low silhouette was ideal for ambushes , and the rear-facing gun meant that the vehicle could be driven away quickly without having to turn around, thus avoiding retaliation. In total 655 were produced by the end of world war II, and the Archer continued in service with the British until the mid-1950s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Just checked, when I said "well after" I actually ment that the fighting was almost over, The Germans in North Africa (Tunisia) surrendered on 13th May 1943. sorry [This message has been edited by Private Pike (edited 08-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 I thought the 6lber was a 57mm... Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Don't forget that David Spade is pretty much useless without Chris Farley. Together they make a "funny unit" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Ah Private Pike, Good try there. Still, you managed to correct yourself before I came along . I believe you'll find the few units which got the Archer in N. Africa were delighted to get them. Archers didn't go to tank units but anti-tank units (in the main of course). There they were a damned sight better than a little 6lber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 Bangs head against wall, amazing how easy it is to type 75 instead of 57 sorry (Again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Duke Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 PeterNZer: I learned to use AT Guns and towed 105mm Howitzers in an Opertation where I was to guard a truck convoy laden with various guns. During the first battle I generally kept them at the rear and mounted on the trucks, but once the second battle came, and I was able to redeploy (at the beginning of the battle) I realized I had been wasting a WHOLE lot of firepower. I then found the longest "lanes" of fire for them and set them up with its carrier truck not too far away and hidden. Its amazing how much better I felt about "scouting" ahead and intitiating bounding movements with those guns covering my arse. They might seem cumbersome, but when you are the attacker and need to move over wide terrain, its allways good to have someone "watching" over you. (But remember that guns don't last long once they are discovered! Use hide/fire tactics to your advantage. And plan to police them up before the battle turns run out.) Anyway, thats how I use them and I'm sure theres hundreds of possibilities. ------------------ One shot...One Kill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 22, 2000 Share Posted August 22, 2000 There was an interesting thread about the Archer recently. It's locked now, for other reasons, but it's still worth a look. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted August 23, 2000 Share Posted August 23, 2000 Actually Fionn British AT units in Africa would have recieved the 17pdr AT gun itself some time before they got the Archer. In fact in one of those fortuitious circumstances of war the British started receiving the 17pdr gun at almost exactly the same time as the Tiger first appeared in Africa. So they immediately had some antidote to it. Contrast this to the poor bloody US units who were still equipped largely with the useless 37mm AT gun in Africa! ------------------ "I never saw such a dejected army, even the Italians carried themselves better in the old desert days. They were mostly Germans, but includede Poles, Russians, Mongols, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Frenchmen, even one American - all in Nazi uniforms." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 23, 2000 Share Posted August 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: The rationale behind the Archer was that it allowed them to mount a powerful AT weapon in a vehicle about a year or so before the purpose-designed tanks with that gun would arrive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right so far. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Trust me, in North Africa you will BLESS the ordinance official who decided to issue Archers as an interim measure until 17-pounder-armed tanks became available. In North Africa it's a choice between a 6 pounder AT gun, a 6 pounder armed tank or an Archer. Which would you pick?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Arrrrrgh!.... [pause to get breathing under control] Are you really trying to convince us that the Archer arrived early enough to be used in North Africa? May I see some proof? Any proof? Any proof at all? Please? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 23, 2000 Share Posted August 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Actually Fionn British AT units in Africa would have recieved the 17pdr AT gun itself some time before they got the Archer. In fact in one of those fortuitious circumstances of war the British started receiving the 17pdr gun at almost exactly the same time as the Tiger first appeared in Africa. So they immediately had some antidote to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Also, they got their 17 lbrs. before the split-trail carriage was ready, so the guns in Tunisia were mounted on 25 lbr. carriages. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Contrast this to the poor bloody US units who were still equipped largely with the useless 37mm AT gun in Africa! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Americans also had TD battalions that consisted of pack 75s mounted on HTs. Not a successful idea, it hardly needs saying, and they were quickly dropped. I don't know if any were used in Sicily, but I believe that by Salerno they were using the M-10 instead. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted August 23, 2000 Share Posted August 23, 2000 The first 17pdr AT guns were in use at least by late March and early April 1943 in Tunisia. I consider it highly unlikely that that the Archer saw action there. The development of the 17pdr gun and the SP versions of the gun; Archer and the M10 conversion (Achilles) came under the aegis of the RA which demonstrated vastly more foresight than their RAC counterparts in terms of gun development. As has been stated before the Archer was extremely popular with it's users and had a long service with the British army. Those who are unhappy with it's performance in CM should blame only themselves. ------------------ "I never saw such a dejected army, even the Italians carried themselves better in the old desert days. They were mostly Germans, but includede Poles, Russians, Mongols, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Frenchmen, even one American - all in Nazi uniforms." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts