Anyone using Marders effectively?

[Cpt. Cook]

I have coincidentally played a number of recent scenarios (pbem and AI) where the Marder as been the core of my anti-tank capability. However, using them judiciously (at long range, seeking hull down and effective ambush positions, &c. &c.) they are often destroyed (I assume) due to their enormous profile. In hull down positions they are often sighted and knocked out without LOS to the attacker (or so it appears). It seems in real life this was also the case. Any comments?

______________________________

Note: this is not a complaint or a "bug" allegation.

[Gaylord Focker]

Key-Hole with them when ever possible.

[Gpig]

I've found them to be pretty useless. Maybe their worth will become more pronouced the longer the ranges. (Would make sense.)

I had a duel with with 2 of my Marders at about 800m versus 3 t-34/76's.

I lost both Marders (and a 3rd Marder, later) to the T-34's.

Also, with only 15 rounds of AT, I was soon out of ammo. My Regular and Veteran Marders seemed to miss an awful lot of shots. By the time they zero'd in, they were down to 4 rounds remaining.

Why does the Marder (an AT platform) have so few AT rounds available in it's loadout?

Of course, this is only ONE engagement. So I really don't have much experience on the Marder. But based on this ONE egagement. When given the choice, I'll avoid Marders in the future.

Gpig.

[Bone_Vulture]

Marders seem behave as freaking AP round magnets. I've witnessed three cases where a Marder is snuffed by a late T-34 around the range of 500 meters with first shot.

I think Marders have potential in loose defensive anti-tank duties (light ground pressure, and pretty fast), and area denial. I wouldn't go attempting to out-maneuver any enemy tank with this egg shell.

[Redwolf]

To use them effectivly you would have to have better camouflage at the start of a defense and an SOP setting "retreat after firing". Both are not modeled.

And also they were best to shoot up tanks that don't see anything and cannot listen to what the accompanying infantry is saying. In CMBB, the infantry spots your marder and the tank waxes it as if they had direct buddy radio.

Last but not least the hit probablities in CMBB for stationary defending vehicles are only good when using a TRP. But in reality these TRPs would apply to a full range of positions, like the full length of a ridge which would have a similar enough range. Zeroing in is also pretty limited in CMBB, switching back to a spot where you previously had zeroing in doesn't give a benefit in CMBB. Very last but not least a retreat by 20 meters to break LOS to some enemy unit makes all TRPs and zeroing in void, although in reality it wouldn't matter that much - neither is 20 meter much when shooting at 1500 meters nor would the crew be too stupid to figure that they have to add 20 meters mentally.

Or in other words: Marders and Nashorns were operating like Deer Hunters in WW2, but in CMBB it is not much different from one wolf pack taking on another. CMBB is better at modeling combat between similar forces, if the forces become to unsymmetric it gets difficult.

[PeterX]

To use them effectivly you would have to have better camouflage at the start of a defense and an SOP setting "retreat after firing".

After one shot? Hardly seems likely. The minimum amount of shells they'd expend to bracket the target would probably come closing to filling a CM minute.

[Carl Puppchen]

I frequently purchase Marders and Nashorns because I view them as relatively historically correct for defensive battles but I, too, find that they get destroyed en masse with hardly any damage to the enemy. Their high profile gives them away even when they set up in decent concealment terrain like scattered trees. Their slow rate of fire also seems to be a problem. I take it from this thread that no one really has a solution for these problems except for the keyhole solution, and if I am doing that I probably ought to buy an AT gun instead.

[Cpt. Cook]

I am glad to see I am not a complete failure as a tactician. I had always assume the high profile meant it could see tanks sooner when hunting AND remain hull down, but that is never the case. They get popped off by anything with a fast turret hull down or not. And hull down usually means they can't see anything.

And they rarely hit on the first shot if keyholed. Then again, these aren't QBs so my experience is limited to green/regular, disregarding CMBO of course.

Eggshell is a good description of these things. From what little I know they were only a stop-gap solution to a lack of effective armor on the eastern front anyhow.

[Warmaker]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Marders seem behave as freaking AP round magnets. I've witnessed three cases where a Marder is snuffed by a late T-34 around the range of 500 meters with first shot.

I think Marders have potential in loose defensive anti-tank duties (light ground pressure, and pretty fast), and area denial. I wouldn't go attempting to out-maneuver any enemy tank with this egg shell.

At 500m or less, you're asking for miracles for your Marders to not get hit by a slew of 76mm tank fire.

I have miserable success with my Marders but things improve if you keep your engagement ranges with them at 800m-1km.

There is one thin-skinned TD that I have lots of success with: The 88mm Nashorns. Removing practically all types of tank threats is a breeze if you treat them as flimsy as any Marder and keep the ranges at about 1km. These things are murder to armor if utilized properly.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Well - I too have had Veteran, Elite and Crack Nashorns blasting away at 1000m + , just so see them missing wildly with their first 3-4 rounds. They were hull down, got the first shots off and all missed, rapidly getting brewed up themselves in quick succession.

I thought it was the way that I was using them, and it likely was - to some degree. I would place my anti-tank guns, and tank destroyers hull down, but covering vast expanses of ground so that I could react to threats from any direction in the 180° in front of me.

All of my books tell me that at 2,000m a Flak 36 should be able to make short work of a squadron of T-34's. CMBB, in some ways, seems to handicap the German optics and the experience of its gunners. Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but I would think that a gun, with optics that can see clearly out to 2,000m, and that is equipt with a rangefinder would make short work of the T-34's, long before they would be able to accurately pinpoint the guns location and subsequently return fire.

This is what makes me think that the suceptability of anti-tank guns and tank destroyers isn't totally "correct" in all of the factors the game engine considers.

Certainly, I think the points raised by redwolf, regarding TRPs are VERY valid. One word about sums this up - Rangecard. Keep in mind that tank destroyers and anti-tank guns, are for the most part defensive weapons, which insinuates that there is enough time to get yourself snug into a good position, and sketch a quick diagram of the outlying area in front of you with the ranges to prominent features to be used as reference points.

I do feel however, that there is something wrong with the way tank destroyers are so easily destroyed themselves, frequently before they are able to score even one hit let alone a kill. It seems their "superior optics" and "nasty guns", are not quite so mencaing after all - even if they are in the hands of a crack crew exploiting their so called "range advantage".

This is in part because of Borg spotting. If a forward enemy sniper sees my Nashorn, then every enemy unit sees my Nashorn - or knows precisely its location.

Those that do have LOS to it, take aim and fire immediately.

So, again in my experience; supperiority in numbers either win the stats game with my Nashorns - and eventually score a direct hit, or the sheer weight of fire suppresses my gun crew - until a direct hit can be made shortly thereafter - usually before I can pull them out of the line.

Of course, if I have to pull the gun out of the line as soon as it has contact with the enemy, then what good is it?

"Borg spotting" totally, takes away from the fact that the individual advancing enemy tanks I'm engaging might not see my Nashorn themselves (let alone be aware of it). This is because they are informed by the "Hive Mind" as to my existence, and location.

Thus, surprising enemy tanks is very difficult, compounded further when the enemy has other units (and particularly Infantry), in front of his tanks "spotting" for the collective.

The ONLY way that I have of getting around this - albeit to a limited degree - is to seek terrain which accomodates a defilade position, providing me with enfilading fire.

For those not familliar with those terms - let me illustrate a scenario;

There is a prominent rise in the ground on my side of the map. I can park on top of it, and see just about all of the map (being VERY visible myself), or I can park on the left hand side, only having a limited view of the left hand side of the map, or alternately park on the right hand side of the feature, with visibility over a portion of the right side of the map.

Its using the sides of the elevated terrain features that help you protect yourself from ALL of the enemy units which have LOS to you. If one sees you then effectively they all see you (or at least "know about you").

However, if only one enemy unit has actual LOS to you (and your hull down to him to boot), your chances of survival just became much better, because he is the only one that can shoot back at you with direct fire.

Use of terrain like this is further augmented by being able to fire on a given enemy target, or pair of targets with a number of your own units, ideally in different locations.

This has the advantage of allowing you to concentrate your firepower from a defensive or ambush position, and also forces your enemy to distribute his own fiewpower to different targets.

This may force him to change facing (presenting flank shots to one of your units) and it also costs him time (to traverse his gun to different targets).

You may want to designate for yourself, a piece of ground which has to be covered by all guns, which you have allocated for that portion of the map. With this in your mind, and weapons able to cover it, you have created a "kill zone".

You might also want to try using this with well coordinated "shoot & scoot" orders, timed from different directions, or at least locations to further amplify your opponents difficulty.

"Shoot & scoot" its self, is a very useful command, which even alone helps you improve your Tank Destroyer's life span and increase you opponent's anxiety.

What I have had trouble using more effectively are anti-tank field guns. They seem to have to be sighted very VERY well, and only allowed to actually cover smaller portions of ground from oblique angles (made REALLY hard on flat maps with sparse trees).

Again, I think a large portion of their suceptability is due to "Borg Spotting".

I have found that so far, use of smoke to help cannalize your enemy, and good use of terrain allows you to position AT Guns so that they SHOULD have marginally longer lifespans. Obstacles help too, though "Obstacles are ONLY Obstacles if they are covered by fire".

Smoke - can sometimes be too easily caught on to. Once youe opponent figures out what your up to, he'll feint you into expending all, or most of it - and when you're out he'll make his move en masse.

In addition, a good opponent will look at your side of the map, and ask himself "if I were the enemy, where would I place my AT Guns?". Yes, this likely happens at every battle, but again the flat maps with sparse vegetation compound the threat from your opponent, who has fewer "likely targets" to spec-fire with his limited indirect fire assets.

In any event - those tactics help me. It by no means makes me invulnerable, or allows me to make absolutely "deadly" use of my anti-tank guns or tank destroyers, but I do find that using these tactics, I'm able to hold ground much longer than I used to; because my anti-tank assets are surviving that much longer, which obviously allows them to deal with enemy threats that much longer.

Hope some of my rambling helped.

Good discussion

[ March 10, 2003, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Gpig:

I had a duel with with 2 of my Marders at about 800m versus 3 t-34/76's.

Gee... would you like to PBEM?

[uhu]

The Marder-series were used as a temporal solution, but -historically- they served very well, mostly in defensive actions.

Uhu

[Sergei]

I found them useful in CMBO, in a limited way of course, haven't seen them in CMBB that much yet. The thing to remember about them, is that they're not tanks. They are self-propelled AT guns. To know how to use them, you have to remember what they were created for.

ATG's are great in defense, I love them and always want to have some. They just have certain limitations. Firstly, they're hardly mobile at all, so once the enemy has spotted them, he won't have too much difficulties at destroying it as long as he has some indirect or infantry support. Too often he has. In that situation, or if the enemy approaches some different way, it takes too much time to relocate. To move a bigger distance, you need a truck to pull them. If your infantry is on the attack, they are pretty much helpless against the enemy heavy tanks because ATG's are too cumbersome to keep it up with the front.

So now someone gets the idea, "hey let's mount the gun ONTO a truck, so after firing one or two shots at the tank, the crew can speed off to a new firing position." The Brits did this as an interim solution because they didn't have enough tanks. Of course this has very notable limitations, too. A truck is highly visible, and once it is spotted, it can easily be hit by shrapnel or MG fire. It won't protect the crew even from small arms fire, and sending it to enemy territory is very risky as just one sniper could kill the crew.

Well, there is a solution. Let's take off the turret and superstructure from some obsolete, to-be-scrapped tanks like Pz-38(t) or Pz-Ib, put a new heavier gun onto it, and then a shield to the front and maybe to the sides. With the turret and most of the armour taken, the chassis can support the new, heavier gun. The light armouring does a fair job at deflecting MG fire and shrapnel, so even if the vehicle is spotted by the enemy and they start tossing bullets and HE to the direction, it has a chance of reversing out of the trouble, taking a new firing position. It can also follow your infantry on attack, offering at least some kind of security against armoured counterattacks by the enemy.

That in our minds, I don't want to use them for duelling, especially not disadvantaged by 2 to 3. Try to get the initiative: have three Marders pop up from behind a hill against a lone tank, fire, then scoot back. Then go somewhere else, because now your enemy will be prepared if you do it again from the same spot. Use their mobility. If your enemy sees your ATG, he knows how to avoid it and how to destroy it. But if he sees your SPATG, he only knows where it was a minute ago.

They are not superlative, but if I can get them cheap, then they can be a good support force. I can use them to support other tanks, or to support infantry.

But I'd like to iterate in general, that you should use any armour like if it was made of paper - because it virtually is. And tanks have only two speeds: stopped, when they're in safe shooting positions, and ultra fast, when they're moving to the next safe shooting position.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Warmaker:

There is one thin-skinned TD that I have lots of success with: The 88mm Nashorns. Removing practically all types of tank threats is a breeze if you treat them as flimsy as any Marder and keep the ranges at about 1km. These things are murder to armor if utilized properly.

Well, the 88 is a big perk.

No worrying about ricochets, unless you're planning on taking down a IS-2 or something. The 88mm rail gun will mow down anything lighter than that usually by the first shot.

One of my usual TCP/IP opponents might remember the horrid battle where my 88mm AT gun managed to ambush a ISU-152 and two T-34's, blowing them all to smithereens in a single turn. :cool:

[Hortlund]

I have found out the hard way that the engagement ranges have to be well above 1300 for the Marders to get the upper hand.

In a battle I recently played, I had 7 Marder IIs with veteran or crack crews face 20something T-34/76s with regular or veteran crews.

I used 4 Marders at distances of 1500-1700 meters. These Marders all survived and they killed 2 T-34s and damaged 2.

I used 3 Marders at distances of 1200-1300 meters. Of these Marders, two were knocked out and one damaged. They killed 1 T-34.

[phil stanbridge]

I just played a QB where I was given 3 Marders. (Ouch was my first thought..) I used them in a 'semi-defensive' position and tried where possible to keep them hull-down and they faired remarkably well. The 76.2mm knocked out a t34, and the 75mm knocked out several halftracks and BA's without a single casualty themselves. The 75mm then went on to ground-pound the troops. All in all a good days work The ai even tried to ko them with arty before finally dropping arms and running.

[Battlefront.com]

The key thing is range and a good firing spot.

If you are out in the open, at anything under probably 1500m... start writing letters home to the Marder crews' families if even the crappiest Soviet tank makes an appearence.

At longer ranges against typical tank targets (i.e. T-34s and early SUs), the Marders were able to use their superior guns and also had a decent chance of surviving a hit.

As a quick example of this I put 4xT-34 (1943) up against 4xMarder III (two Early, two Late). The Marders were Vets, the T-34s Regs. The map was completely flat and open and the two sides were 1800m apart. This setup is, of course, highly unrealistic, but it showed that the Marders aren't inherently junk.

Test 1 - 3 KO'd and 1 Panicked w/casualty T-34s, 2 KO'd Marders.

Test 2 - 4 KO'd T-34s, 1 KO'd Marder

Test 3 - 4 KO'd T-34s, 0 KO'd, 1 w/casualty Marders

Test 4 - 2 KO'd, 1 Routed w/casualty, 1 Panicked w/casualty T-34s, 1 KO'd Marder

In tests #1 and #4 the Marders ran out of AP ammo. In Test #4 the two surviving T-34s were hiding behind the smoke from a burning T-34 and therefore were unhittable without maneuvering. No test went beyond 3 turns.

My quick and unrealistic test simply shows that even in unfavorable circumstances, the Marders at long range can stand up to the typical Soviet tank of the day.

Remember that a Marder is nothing more than an AT gun stuck up in the air with some tracks underneath it. This is not anything that was designed to take effective counter fire. They were designed to shoot from long range, limited exposure positions and bugger out. That was all they were good for. To do more than that you need to use any one of the other tank plinkers:

Elephant, Jagdpanther, Jagdpanzer IV, StuG III F/G, StuG IV, Hetzer, and Jagdtiger to be specific.

Both types of vehicles were built for different reasons:

Marders - fairly cheap to produce and maintain in the field.

Others (noted above) - far more capable, but also far more expensive and logistically difficult to deal with.

If the Germans had their choice, I am sure they would have rather made more of the other types. But the Marders weren't a bad stopgap weapon when used correctly. This should be reflected in the game.

Obviously there are some limitations.

1) Preregistered aim points are obviously not possible without TRPs, but this isn't a huge factor IMHO since this wasn't something they always had time to do even when on the defensive (i.e. Marders were moved up to defensive positions instead of starting out there). This also can be a negative for the attacker too, as a planned attack would involve getting some estimate of ranges prior to moving out. I would say this limitation only slightly favors the attacker in the Big Picture.

2) The Borg Spotting problem also favors the side with more guns within LOF of a target at any given time. This does not inherently favor either attacker/defender or even a player with more/less vehicles. Good defensive firing positions can largely neutralize this problem more than the attacker can.

3) Vehicles are commanded by gamers and not people who might be killed at any given second. Often a defender would snipe a few attacking vehicles and the survivors would pull back and rethink the attack. Since CM is a game, this doesn't really tend to happen. It means that a bold (i.e. reckless) commander on the attack MIGHT get a big payoff for big risks that few commanders in the field would ever attempt. Plus, since the attacker generally knows more about the defender (see above + standard knowledge of how the game works) than he should, such a bold risk can be better calculated than in the real world. This inherently favors neither side, but probably favors attacker more in the Big Picture.

Just some more food for thought

Steve

[Dirtweasle]

Marders are like Weasles. I like 'em!

Think seriously about using Shoot and Scoot almost exclusively because as others say they are not going to survive an encounter with a tank very often.

[Poor Old Spike]

Newbie Apostol has just whupped my T-34/76 force real bad with his mainly-Marder force in the Rugged Defense Ladder.

Many more humiliations like that and I won't be ladder leader much longer :eek:

[MikeyD]

Funny how during the course of this thread the Marder evolved from dog to uberweapon! In my mind it's still leaning towards doggedness.

Borg spotting can be an advantage to the Marder as well. If you were to keep a pair of Marders behind a hill with a reliable infantry squad sitting nearby in some bushes scouting for you, it'd be easy work to shoot-and-scoot the pair (or the whole Marder platoon!) up to the crest of the hill and back to engage targets of opportunity. Sure you'll proably rarely hit anything with those single shots but you'd be denying the enemy a route of advance.

[tracer]

I agree with MikeyD, the marder is good for nothing but long range, it is nothing but a self propelled gun, and one of many of germany's fill ins to cope with the T-34 in a hurry, seeing how germanys other AT weapons at the time were very underpowered to cope with the T34s. I compare dueling with a Marder agianst a T-34, like deuling with a 105 SP gun and Panther Pz(you don't use a steak knife to chop wood).