Why Are Tanks So Conservative Using Main Gun?

[Col Deadmarsh]

I have seen on numerous occasions, tanks which encounter infantry and only use the mg to fire at the target. It seems they only fire the main gun for the entire round when told to do so by the player.

In one game I had a Stuart who had 90 freaking rounds of HE. On one turn, the tank ran into an enemy squad about 200 meters away and didn't fire the main gun once. That's ridiculous. I can understand a tank being conservative if it had under 10 rounds left, but 90? What the hell? Does anybody else notice this behavior from their tanks?

[Ellros]

I have not noticed it with larger caliber gunned tanks, such as Shermans or PzIV's, but strangely enough I have seen it with Stuarts. They refuse to fire the main gun at infantry unless specifically ordered to, just like you said.

[Stalin's Organ]

The co-ax MG is probably at elast as effective as the main gun of a Stuart withing it's normal range, so it gets used instead.

[lcm1947]

Colonel Deadmarsh is right. I see it all the time with my Sherman's. I am always saying " Shoot the bastard " meaning use your cannon damn it! So yeah it happens a lot but I'm used to having to command them now after 100 games or whatever I've played.

[PzKpfw 1]

standard Tank gun HE is not that effective vs spread out Inf, it just can't carry eneough of a charge, so basicly though its great for that flash & bang effect & get's grunts attention, its not gonna break up a determined assault, sorta like using an elephant gun to shoot flies.

Where as the tanks MGs can lay down a hail of fire in an area, & tanks can carry larger ammounts of MG ammo then then they can HE rounds.

The main gun also has an slower ROF, wheras the tanks machine guns, will drive inf to cover & buy the tank time to acess the situation & take action. This is not to say HE rounds wen't effective against Inf, just if the Inf in in machine gun range it's a better choice. Its one of the reasons the Abrams doesn't have an HE capability other then the much less effective HEAT-MP round, & the SOP is to use the co-axe MG vs Inf targets.

Regards, John Waters

[olandt]

Quick question, does using the main gun preclude use of the machine guns? Doesn't the tank fire eveything is has?

[Stalin's Organ]

No they don't - they fire such weapons as they can control at the same time.

for a Sherman this will usually mean the bow mg, the main gun, and an AAMG if fitted.

This is why a crew sans commander no longer gets to fire it's external MG - they're all head down in the turret serving the main weapon.

There may be some weapons that are slaved to each other that would presumably be exceptions.

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

Quick question, does using the main gun preclude use of the machine guns? Doesn't the tank fire eveything is has?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I'm wondering. If you have 5 men in a tank, one is firing the bow mg while the other one is firing the HE ammo. There would be no reason to NOT fire the main gun if you have enough men to do it and a full ammo supply.

By the way, I don't believe a word of that "HE ammo isn't as effective as mg" bit. You can't possibly be serious...

[Conscript Bagger]

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

By the way, I don't believe a word of that "HE ammo isn't as effective as mg" bit. You can't possibly be serious...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just going by the numbers given in CM, a Sherman's bow and coaxial MGs each have 66 FP at 100m, and 40 FP at 250m (numbers given in the M1919A4 stats - I believe it's the same weapon). The 75mm gun has 39 blast at all ranges.

(That's not to say the burst of an HE round doesn't cause additional suppression or have some other effect.)

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Offwhite ]

[Triumvir]

While trying to find more indepth information about this, specifically about the bursting charges and effective casualty radius of the 75mm and 37mm HE rounds, I ran across a great site:

http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt5.htm

which, among many, _many_ gems, states that airburst seems to be no more effective against enemies in slit trenches than groundburst.

It also seems to suggest that the 75mm on a Sherman had a reasonable casualty radius of around 28 feet/9 metres.

Unfortunately, the page is pretty poorly organized, so you'll have to dig a bit.

[PzKpfw 1]

Think about it this way; your the gunner in a tank, your FOV is limited by your sight picture, & magnification level. At best unless you caught a whole Co moving across flat open terrain, your going to actualy see very few troops to fire at.

So you, as the gunner, line up 1 or 2 guy's adjust elevation etc, & fire, while trying to traverse the turret, to keep the sight on your targets, fire, wait for the smoke to clear from the discharge, wait for your reload & find a new target, preferably a bunch of guys all clustered up, so you can get an effective hit.

Meanwhile while you wait for the smoke to clear, & your loader to get another shell in the breech, your targets are takeing evasive manouvers, & getting closer to your tank, while plotting your demise with their AT wpns. Whereas the other tank with you was fireing his Co-axel & bow MGs has killed & pinned a bunch of enemy Infantry.

HE was much more effective vs bunkers & fighting in built up areas vs roadblocks & structures then it was against Inf.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Jarmo]

Tanks usually fire what they think is the most effective weapon.

Coaxial MG and main gun are mutually exclusive, you can only fire one or the other. For puny little guns like Stuarts 37mm, the MG is more effective, except for long ranges. Sherman's 75mm is more effective than the MG, except for the real short ranges when the target is in the open.

Bow MG and the Flexible MG always fire if they have ammo. Commander needs to be alive and unbuttoned to operate the flexible MG.

Note, if the commander is wounded or killed, both bow MG and flexible MG go silent.

[rob d]

Jarmo, why would the hull machine gun go out of action if the commander is hit? Does the radio operator/machine gunner move up into the turret?

[jshandorf]

I bitched about this to Steve a while back, and whether or not you believe it is better to fire the Main Gun at infantry or the MG is really moot. The fact was that in earlier revs tanks were not using their Main Gun on infantry, which regardless of the effectiveness, they did ALOT in actual combat.

I was having infantry running to and fro, 500 meters to 50 meters from my tanks with them refusing to fire or really even ackknowledge the presence of the infantry. I bitched a bunch and finally Steve took a look at it and within the last few patches the "problem" was fixed. And believe me when I say I actually noticed the difference.

So, what does this mean? It means that if you think that tanks don't fire their main guns enough at INF now, imagine what it was like before.

Jeff

[gunnergoz]

Too bad the 37mm canister round is not modeled. It was extensively used in the Pacific and saw some use in Europe as well. Think of a shotgun on steroids!

[The_Capt]

I have to concur with the observation by the good Col, the main guns are not used enough.

I am sorry, I have seen tanks in live fire and if you get a bunch firing at a localized area, infantry are going to go to ground. If you get a Sqn or 14-16, which is what current armoured doctrine calls for (based a lot of course from lessons in WWII) the amount of direct AP and AT firepower which can be laid down is staggering. So a single tank may not be able to stop an assault with HE but a troop sure as hell could.

[MikeyD]

I've found a paper written on conducting desert warfare by Gen Patten himself(!) in which he states the mgs on a tank are by far more lethal and useful than the gun. Of course he was writing early in the war (or perhaps even prewar?) when tank guns weren't much to brag about yet.

When your tank stats say 60 rounds remember only -15-20 of them are ready rounds and half of those could be smoke or AP. This means after firing a few rounds into the bushes in an attempts to kill some enemy the loader got to get on his hands and knees and start hefting more rounds into the racks again. After a couple engagements where you thoroughly exhaust your poor loader using the mgs more start to look like a pretty good idea

[MikeyD]

re my note above:

Let's play word jumble! Sorry about transposing every fourth word. Some days my typing skills better are others than.

[gunnergoz]

What's interesting about the Patton desert experience quote is that it reflects his knowledge of the use of both the early Sherman, the M-3 Grant and the Stuart. The Grant had the armament (in effect) of the Sherman and Stuart combined so it potentially packed a heck of an HE/antipersonnel wallop. Still, Patton prefers the use of the tank m.g.'s for antipersonnel use.

HE rounds seem to be favored for use against point targets, and a squad facing a tank is going to spread out or they'll be dead pretty quick from (you got it) main gun HE fire. The m.g.'s beaten zone is a far more efficient way to get to a bunch of spread out and probably prone targets.

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

Too bad the 37mm canister round is not modeled. It was extensively used in the Pacific and saw some use in Europe as well. Think of a shotgun on steroids!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah...I remember this from my CC2 days. The tactic that we all used was to rush Lil' Stu right at the enemy soldiers and watch people get shredded. I remember the Firefly had one too that was even better. Is that not modeled in this game either? Which begs the question: If the Panther's Nav...Naveh...Navhoweveryouspellit is modeled in this game, then why not cannister rounds for the Allies?

[PzKpfw 1]

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

[Q]

I am sorry, I have seen tanks in live fire and if you get a bunch firing at a localized area, infantry are going to go to ground. If you get a Sqn or 14-16, which is what current armoured doctrine calls for (based a lot of course from lessons in WWII) the amount of direct AP and AT firepower which can be laid down is staggering. So a single tank may not be able to stop an assault with HE but a troop sure as hell could.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So have I Capt, & I didn't know we were discussing a Co of tanks engageing Inf in ideal conditions.

Inf doesn't just conviently expose themselves to a tank Co or Bn for target practice. & your still limited by what the gunner can see etc.

I never said HE wasn't effective, just that once Inf entered MG range the MG was more effective, then the gunner sitting their shooting HE at single moveing targets

Regards, John Waters

[Vanir Ausf B]

I must have a weird copy of the game or something. My tanks always seem to blaze away at infantry with the main gun without being told to. In fact, I rarely target my tanks at all, I just let the TacAI do it. I don't have to start telling them to use the main gun until they get low on HE (like 1/4 the rounds they started with).

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I must have a weird copy of the game or something. My tanks always seem to blaze away at infantry with the main gun without being told to. In fact, I rarely target my tanks at all, I just let the TacAI do it. I don't have to start telling them to use the main gun until they get low on HE (like 1/4 the rounds they started with).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So do mine Vanir, until they get down to like 6 HE rounds then they dtop fireing.

Regards, John Waters

[offtaskagain]

I seem to have that version too. In the most recent wish list of commands I added one for a low ROF for main guns so they don't waste all their ammo in 2 turns like Stugs tend to do. Especially at range where they're not likely to do much damage.

[offtaskagain]

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

While trying to find more indepth information about this, specifically about the bursting charges and effective casualty radius of the 75mm and 37mm HE rounds, I ran across a great site:

http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt5.htm

which, among many, _many_ gems, states that airburst seems to be no more effective against enemies in slit trenches than groundburst.

It also seems to suggest that the 75mm on a Sherman had a reasonable casualty radius of around 28 feet/9 metres.

Unfortunately, the page is pretty poorly organized, so you'll have to dig a bit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really liked this quote from the page

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is recommended to abandon the benzene/perspex mixture. With the heavy

flamethrower fuel, 50% of the animals in the incendiary area were casualties.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>