Concerns about the specifics of Anti-Tank gun Ambushes in CM2:BB

[Pak40]

Concerns about the specifics of Anti-Tank gun Ambushes in CM2:BB

(This refers to AT guns doing their own ambushes, not directed by a leader unit)

Topic #1 - The current ambush system only allows 1 spot to be ambushed. CMII allows you to place an arc cover area with a distance set which should eliminate this problem. However, the ambush distance allowed in CM:BO has a limit. For some reason, which makes no sense to me, an AT gun can set ambushes only up to a certain distance. Why let an AT guns set an ambush marker 300m away but not 350m away? An AT gun crew is trained to set ambushes no matter what the distance.I hope this ambush distance limit is not carried over to CM2:BB

Topic #2 - AT gun ambushes are unit ignorant. If an infantry unit crosses near or on the ambush marker the AT gun will open fire, giving away it's hidden location. If I'm trying to ambush a tank, I don't want to reveal my location by firing at infantry, especially if they are no threat to the gun. I hope that in CM:BB, AT guns have the CHOICE of including infantry in their ambush arcs.

Topic #3 - (not related to ambushes) It has been mentioned before on the forum that AT guns should be able to reverse. It is common practice to move a gun backwards rather than turn it 180 and move forwards (especially at CM rotating rate)

Topic #4 - (not related to ambushes) AT gun crew rotation. This had been a much debated topic on the forums. I can't quite remember what the consensus was, but in my own opinion the AT guns in CM rotate too slowly. I'm well aware of the fact that the gun has be limbered/unlimbered. But I'd be willing to bet that any full crew could rotate their gun to meet a deadly threat within a few seconds and squeeze off that one round that would save their ass from being killed (as opposed to 60 seconds in CM). Obviously the bigger guns would take longer to rotate and crews with injured memebers would operate more slowly. Hopefully this can be improved in CM:BB

[Kwazydog]

Heya Pak

Hopefully I can answer your questions for you.

Topic #1 : This limit has been removed and as far as I know, it will be remaining that way.

Topic #2 : This should no longer be a problem at all, but I cant go into details at this point.

Topic #3 : This has recently been discussed, but unfortunately coding issues may prevent this. If it dosnt make it into CMBB is will be done in the rewrite.

Topic #4 : Interesting point Pak, I will bring it up with the guys and see if it has been discussed at all. Maybe this would help solve *some* of the issues with #3 if coding issues prevent a more direct solution

Hope that kinda helps Pak. I think 1 and 2 are the main issues which I am happy to say should no longer be of concern.

Dan

[WineCape]

KwazyDog,

Thanks for answering Pak's question, especially with regard to points #1 + #2. This to me is the essence of any Anti Tank Gun and ambushes, that they only target/ambush (or provide the option at least) AFV's and the like.

Thanks, by implication of your comments K-Dog, to Charles/Steve for listening

Regards,

Charl Theron

[Ghost Dog]

Here´s an intersting story that deals with gun rotation, albeit in an extreme situation.

At the Oosterbeek highway in the last days of fighting around Arnhem, a 6-pounder Airborne antitank gun troop arrives, with a somewhat reluctant hero,gunner Len Clarke.

"Some South Staffs came running from the station - from the north - and said, "There´s some bloody Tiger tanks coming." I told them not to to be so daft; the Germans should´nt have any Tigers here. Lieutenant Glover said he and I would go out and meet the tanks, but I said, "No. You get a single man." I had only been married six months. But no one else would go with him, so I said I would, provided we emptied the jeep of all equipment, so that nothing would get in our way.

But we were too late, because a small tank appeared before we moved. It had come along a track parallel with the main road and put its nose out into the road from the station. I fired - he was about 200 to 250 yards away - and hit it. It moved back out of sight. We were going to move the gun to a new position but had only manhandled it halfway across the road outside Schoonoord Hotel when I saw a tank on the station appearing over the top of a small rise about 200 yards away. I shouted, "Turn the gun, drop the rail and get out of the way." They said I could´nt fire it like that; you were supposed to have the cross-stay in to secure the two arms of the trail. I said we had´nt got time for that. The Number Two stayed to load for me; the others got out of the way. I fired three shots at that tank and hit it at the join of the turret and the hull, and it just stopped. Then another tank came up to pass it, and I hit that as it was passing with another three shots and stopped that. Every time I fired, the gun moved back another fifteen feet because because the spade end of the trail was´nt dug in; we were only on the cobbled street.

A captain of the South Staffs had seen all this and he took my name and Lieutenant Glover´s and he said he was going to recommend us for decorations. Lieutenant Glover said that I would be made up to sergeant - a field promtion."

From the book;

Arnehem 1944 by Martin Middlebrook.

ISBN 0-14-014342-4

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Ghost Dog ]

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Ghost Dog ]

[olandt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ghost Dog:

Here´s an intersting story that deals with gun rotation, albeit in an extreme situation.

At the Oosterbeek highway in the last days of fighting around Arnhem, a 6-pounder Airborne antitank gun troop arrives, with a somewhat reluctant hero,gunner Len Clarke.

"Some South Staffs came running from the station - from the north - and said, "There´s some bloody Tiger tanks coming." I told them not to to be so daft; the Germans should´nt have any Tigers here. Lieutenant Glover said he and I would go out and meet the tanks, but I said, "No. You get a single man." I had only been married six months. But no one else would go with him, so I said I would, provided we emptied the jeep of all equipment, so that nothing would get in our way.

But we were too late, because a small tank appeared before we moved. It had come along a track parallel with the main road and put its nose out into the road from the station. I fired - he was about 200 to 250 yards away - and hit it. It moved back out of sight. We were going to move the gun to a new position but had only manhandled it halfway across the road outside Schoonoord Hotel when I saw a tank on the station appearing over the top of a small rise about 200 yards away. I shouted, "Turn the gun, drop the rail and get out of the way." They said I could´nt fire it like that; you were supposed to have the cross-stay in to secure the two arms of the trail. I said we had´nt got time for that. The Number Two stayed to load for me; the others got out of the way. I fired three shots at that tank and hit it at the join of the turret and the hull, and it just stopped. Then another tank came up to pass it, and I hit that as it was passing with another three shots and stopped that. Every time I fired, the gun moved back another fifteen feet because because the spade end of the trail was´nt dug in; we were only on the cobbled street.

A captain of the South Staffs had seen all this and he took my name and Lieutenant Glover´s and he said he was going to recommend us for decorations. Lieutenant Glover said that I would be made up to sergeant - a field promtion."

From the book;

Arnehem 1944 by Martin Middlebrook.

ISBN 0-14-014342-4

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Ghost Dog ]

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Ghost Dog ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that sounds like a great way to model the reverse for the gun...

[John Kettler]

Concerning #4, I believe there are multiple issues which may need to be adddressed here. Some AT guns traverse by handwheels; others by

essentially shoulder push. In either case, AT guns typically have a fairly wide angular coverage as the fire arc. That entire arc can be covered without having to lift the trails and physically turn the entire gun. Moreover,

it doesn't take long at all to traverse the gun within its standard arc. It happens much faster than we see in the game. I have personally played with Russian 37mm AA and U.S. quad 40mm naval mounts, both of which use handwheels and make the traverse rates we see in the game look glacial by comparison. One might argue that it isn't hard to quickly traverse a light AA gun, as compared to an AT gun of heavier caliber, but when a multiple 40mm mount is under discussion, the overall weight of the rotating elements far eclipses the traversing components of a 75-76mm AT gun and almost certainly an 88-90mm gun as well.

For the record, an 88 data sheet prepared by Col. G.B. Jarrett and R.P. Hunnicutt and covering Flaks 18,36 and 37 lists the times to traverse 360 degrees as being 15.02 seconds in high gear and 69.79 in low gear. Table is found in "The German EightyEight" by the authors listed and appears on page 66 of JOURNAL: Military Panorama No.1, Copyright 1969 by Feist Publications.

I submit that things proceed rather more leisurely in the game at present. That certainly has been my impression when my AT guns were trying to traverse to engage. My 88s traverse with all the slow gravity of the town drunk trying to walk soberly past a cop.

I think it would be instructive for someone to run some tests on this important matter.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Andreas]

John,

those are really different mounts though, aren't they? The 88 Flak sits on a full rotation mount, while your ordinary AT gun is more or less fixedand has to be brought round by lifting the arms, or do I have that wrong? The same goes for the AA guns you played around with. Those would presumably have 360 degree traverse also.

I can not comment on a speed differential between the full traverse mounted AA guns (including the 88) and the dedicated AT guns in the game, as I have not tested it.

I am very glad to see Kwazy's response though. IRL, the worst enemy of a tank was not another tank but the humble AT gun. In the game they are currently undermodelled to some degree and very hardly hit by absolute spotting. Removing some of the undermodelling as outlined above will go a long way to deal with Ubertanks, be they Soviet or German...

[Fangorn]

One unrealistic flaw of AT guns (rifles mostly) is the fact they are sooo slow, because they are carrying all the ammo wherever they go, while, in real life, an AT crew would pile the ammo in one position, and use a member or two to run from the stockpile to the gun position with more ammo.

I fear that will be almost impossible to proper code in CMII engine, and even if it is possible, most players will dislike the micromanagement...

[Pak40]

Kwazydog,

Thanks for the quick response. I guess the problem with moving in reverse is that the AT gun is treated as a leg unit and not a vehicle, therfore it has no ability to go into reverse in CM. But, when you think about it, any leg unit should also be able to go in reverse (backing up while watching for the enemy, for example). Obviously this reverse speed would be very slow, similar to the sneak speed because one can't run going backwards very well. Hopefully they can code this into a future CM.

Thanks for checking into topic #4

Jeff

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ghost Dog:

At the Oosterbeek highway in the last days of fighting around Arnhem, a 6-pounder Airborne antitank gun troop arrives, with a somewhat reluctant hero,gunner Len Clarke.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for that excellent example. It shows that in desparate situations they could, in fact, squeeze off shots without the gun being secured.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Concerning #4, I believe there are multiple issues which may need to be adddressed here. Some AT guns traverse by handwheels; others by

essentially shoulder push. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting points. I was, of coarse, referring to the normal AT gun with the two arm mount, which would have to be picked up and rotated if the target was outside of the firing arc. The German 88 anti aircraft version and US 90mm both would have the hand wheel I assume and the rotation rate would be the same no matter if the situation is desparate or not. A man can only crank that wheel so fast

I understand what you are saying about the arc of fire. I think this needs to be addressed in CM also. It would be similar to the SP guns in the game that have the same arc limitations.

[Steve McClaire]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

...I guess the problem with moving in reverse is that the AT gun is treated as a leg unit and not a vehicle, therfore it has no ability to go into reverse in CM. But, when you think about it, any leg unit should also be able to go in reverse (backing up while watching for the enemy, for example)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, this would be a REALLY nice feature to have for infantry units. An excellent idea and one I'd also love to see in CMBB or later versions.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

Thanks for that excellent example. It shows that in desparate situations they could, in fact, squeeze off shots without the gun being secured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In desperate situations, 88s fired while limbered up. The problem is how to model these situations in the game, because you can bet your right hand that somehow the desperate situation would end up being the standard in all the games.

This problem extends beyond AT guns. M8HWCs, VG SMG Squads, VT arty, Fallschirmjaeger, Kingtiger tanks, anyone?

[Andrew H.]

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

In desperate situations, 88s fired while limbered up. The problem is how to model these situations in the game, because you can bet your right hand that somehow the desperate situation would end up being the standard in all the games.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Making the unusual the rule is, I think, often a problem in wargames because it's the unusual that tends to get written about. I.e., the PIAT man who took out three tanks in 15 seconds firing his PIAT from the hip, or tankers who hit moving enemy tanks at an ungodly distance...or this gunner firing his 6lber in a non-standard way.

I think that the situation is a little different for limbered 88s because they were designed so that they could be fired while limbered. I think SL/ASL gave the limbered 88 some sort of penalty for firing while limbered, but I've forgotten what the penalty was, or exactly what kind of penalty it was, even.

[Gregory Deych]

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

Heya Pak

Topic #3 : This has recently been discussed, but unfortunately coding issues may prevent this. If it dosnt make it into CMBB is will be done in the rewrite.

Dan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is probably the most important item on the list...perhaps alterations could be made to the withdraw command, so that it happens much quicker for ATG guns.

[John Kettler]

Germanboy,

The AT guns I described use either shoulder traverse, like a 2 pdr., or traverse wheels, like the German 5 cm. Pak 38. The latter, per Allied Intelligence Bulletins, has a total traverse of 65 degrees, 32.5 degrees right and left. This is a substantial engagement zone and a far cry from your notion of aiming the gun by physically manhandling and pointing the carriage. We're not handspiking 24 pdrs. about

the deck of a 74 gun SOL here. The trails on the AT gun are only lifted when the target is about to leave the firing arc and the engagement must continue. BTW, the 2 pdr. has a pedestal mount, hence all-round traverse.

Regards,

John Kettler

PS

The game beautifully handles the minuscule traverse of the Stug III's gun, so I see no reason why we should have problems modeling AT gun traverse.

[John Kettler]

Another thing I'd like to see for all crew served weapons is the ability to separate from the gun in order to use crew shelters and similar near but not at the gun. I'd also like to see a "spike the gun!" command which would then disable the weapon and free the crew to withdraw at the run, unencumbered by the weapon or it's ammo boxes.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Germanboy,

The AT guns I described use either shoulder traverse, like a 2 pdr., or traverse wheels, like the German 5 cm. Pak 38. The latter, per Allied Intelligence Bulletins, has a total traverse of 65 degrees, 32.5 degrees right and left. This is a substantial engagement zone and a far cry from your notion of aiming the gun by physically manhandling and pointing the carriage. We're not handspiking 24 pdrs. about

the deck of a 74 gun SOL here. The trails on the AT gun are only lifted when the target is about to leave the firing arc and the engagement must continue. BTW, the 2 pdr. has a pedestal mount, hence all-round traverse.

Regards,

John Kettler

PS

The game beautifully handles the minuscule traverse of the Stug III's gun, so I see no reason why we should have problems modeling AT gun traverse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree - from your initial post it seemed like you were unhappy with total traverse (beyond 32.5 degrees in case of the Pak38), so I must have misunderstood that. The 2pdr AT gun is interesting in that from the pictures I have seen it seems to have had an all-round mounting. It is also the only dedicated AT gun I know that has that.

I was not even aware that the wheel traverse is not modeled. Are you sure? Maybe my AT guns just die too fast...

As for the other bits - allowing them to take shelter, I am not so sure about this one. In a barrage definitely yes. When under fire from tanks, they should not though, since it is their job to fight the tanks. This could be difficult, and I would be interested what SOP was. From what I have read in Bidermann's book (German AT gunner in GPW) they did not abandon the gun to seek shelter. Instead the gun pit itself was the shelter (if there was one).

[Username]

The 88 PAK 43 also had a 360 degree platform.

A dug-in ATG could have a trench built between the trail legs. This would allow the loaders and gun commander to stand up (the gunner, of course, would have to be behind the shield) while doing their jobs. During a bombardment, they could all jump down in the pit. The ammo usually was in a seperate bunker and was run up to the gun when the ready rounds ran out.

The hey-day of the ATG was the 20mm-50mm weapons. These could be pulled around by relatively small, quick vehicles and even pushed around/dragged by teams of men.

When these weapons got larger and much heavier, they tended to get lost very quickly. Hence they were sited further back and on reverse slopes. In an attack, the old 20mm-50mm weapons were very useful, helping to destroy HMG and small bunkers, etc. The ammo for these weapons was relatively small and easily handled. The larger weapons were not so easily adapted.

The very large "88" type AT weapons had a overmatch advantage that would allow them to dominate from longer ranges. Even this advantage was worn away by arty/radios/airpower. It also depended on visabilty at these ranges. These weapons became something defenses would often fall back on.

Very few nations bothered with new ATG developments post WWII. They, and the flawed policies, like the US TD program, became scrap. Tanks were to fight tanks and missiles were the new way to go.

Lewis

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Andrew H.]

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

Very few nations bothered with new ATG developments post WWII. They, and the flawed policies, like the US TD program, became scrap. Tanks were to fight tanks and missiles were the new way to go.

Lewis

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Username ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before missiles and after AT guns, a lot of countries concentrated on recoilless rifles with HEAT in the AT role.

I agree with your other point about AT guns reaching the height of their potential with the <50mm guns. Some of these guns -- in particular, the German 37mm AT gun, the German 28mm taper bore, and the british 2-pounder -- were wonderfully designed for the world of 1939-40.

[Username]

yeah about the RR. I was thinking more on a Bn level and above. But the push was for hollow charge. HC bazookas, RR and guided missiles.

The korean war saw the last real use of ATG. They even had the russian 45mm doing some infantry support.

"In front of Seoul 2/5 from the 104 fights without a single heavy gun in action. We'd run into a swarm of 45mm AT guns, and they had sniped our heavy guns out of existence. Those 45mm AT guns fired a round that you could see leave the barrel and proceeded along like a red hot baseball. You could see them coming if they weren't aimed straight at you. Chilling."

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30calhv.htm

The quote about heavy guns is talking about HMGs by the way. In Panzerjaeger and Soldat, the german authors also speak of the usefullness of these 37mm weapons. By using HE and AP, they would make HMG scrap and destroy light bunkers, buildings, etc. I bet the 37mm armed 251 HT used its gun against infantry alot also.

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Username ]