Anti-Tank guns vs. Tanks

[Troy Spiral]

Is it just me, or does it seem like the anti-tank guns dont do their job all that well? (at least the ones in the demo)

If a gun is supposed to KILL TANKS. And thats basicly all it does. Why do you have to "finesse" a side or rear shot?

The guns are bulit to kill armor. Why the heck do they need side or rear shots for that? You'd think that guns that were made for ONE purpose, would be very very good at it...

[Guest Mike]

Ummmm.....maybe because when teh guns weer built they could....but then some smart arse on het other side figured that they could put more armour on their tanks and then the guns couldn't any more??

The AT guns in the Kursk scenario of the demo are 1940 vintage, the tanks are 1942-43. In that time armour basis increased from 30mm to 50-60mm (IIRC).

Oddly enough this means the tanks are harder to kill with those guns!

The Soviets kept the 45mm guns in production long after their real useful life because rejigging the factories to produce better guns like the 57mm would've resulted in a widespread shortage of guns, and it was better to have a poor ATG than no ATG at all.

[Das Reich]

Originally posted by Troy Spiral:

If a gun is supposed to KILL TANKS. And thats basicly all it does. Why do you have to "finesse" a side or rear shot?

The guns are bulit to kill armor. Why the heck do they need side or rear shots for that? You'd think that guns that were made for ONE purpose, would be very very good at it...

because the thickest and hardest to penetrate armor on a tank is usually its front armor. So it is common sense that you would rather hit the side or the rear of the tank to have a better chance of penetrating. You must also take into account the caliber of the gun you are using and the type of tank you are trying to kill. for example, a 45mm ATG is going to have avery hard time piercing the front armor of a Mk V Panther tank. So its best chance at a KO would be to hit the rear of the Panther.

Not every AT gun was made to take out every tank. smaller caliber guns should only be used on light armor. Higher caliber AT guns like the German 88 can take out just about any tank from the front.

[ January 16, 2003, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Das Reich ]

[Mud]

Yes, believe it or not there were disparities at various times. This isn't _Warcraft Foo_ where units and counter-units are so matched and where sides are symmetrical. When the Soviet AT capability is lousy, the game reflects that... and when the Panzers bog down on snow and mud and the T-34s flank them with ease, that's reflected too.

[Troy Spiral]

I have a tendency to assume , that "anti tank gun" is a single unit, and sort of "vanilla". But im noticing i need to start paying a lot more attention to what type of guns/tanks are on the field.

But seeing as how i just found out what "hull down" meant about an hour ago, at least im learning. hehe

Thanks for the follow up posts, without to much of the "you dumbass newbie" tone to them

[Mud]

BTW, if you haven't noticed it yet -- select units and hit Enter. You'll see a fair bit of data on them, such as armor, firepower, speed et al. For an AT gun, you need to check muzzle velocity as well as the penetration table, since that nicely-penetrating HC round won't do squat if the muzzle velocity means that it'll probably miss at that range. Vehicles have armor described, per sector (turret / superstructure, upper hull, lower hull, and front/side/rear), et al.

[Troy Spiral]

Thanks mud. I did know about the select/enter for more info, but i appreciate the tips. What i'd really like to find is some site someplace that turns much of that data into "english" some of it doesnt mean much to me. Is there such a thing?

[Mud]

Hm. There are, it seems, tables, but aside from the color-coding (the colors associated with the guns are on the same coding scheme as the color coding of the armor) I'm not aware of a summary system.

[Das Reich]

never mind

[ January 16, 2003, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Das Reich ]

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Mike:

Ummmm.....maybe because when teh guns weer built they could....but then some smart arse on het other side figured that they could put more armour on their tanks and then the guns couldn't any more??

The AT guns in the Kursk scenario of the demo are 1940 vintage, the tanks are 1942-43. In that time armour basis increased from 30mm to 50-60mm (IIRC).

Oddly enough this means the tanks are harder to kill with those guns!

The Soviets kept the 45mm guns in production long after their real useful life because rejigging the factories to produce better guns like the 57mm would've resulted in a widespread shortage of guns, and it was better to have a poor ATG than no ATG at all.

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

It is worth adding that 57mm ZiS2 gun was very complicated and about 10 times more expensive than 76 mm Zi3, not to mention 45 mm guns.

[demoss]

I have a tendency to assume , that "anti tank gun" is a single unit, and sort of "vanilla". But im noticing i need to start paying a lot more attention to what type of guns/tanks are on the field.

As you're no doubt figuring out, there's no "vanilla" anything in this game. Well, except graphically, for German halftracks. The colors displayed on the gun tables (gun penetration) and the unit info displays (armor quality) are an excellent way to ease yourself into the detail - compare your colors to theirs, and you'll have at least a rough idea of whether your shot is worth taking.

[Pak40]

Troy,

keep in mind that Russian AT guns are pure crap compared to the German guns. This is true throughout the entire war. You might have better success playing as the Germans.

[Guest Mike]

Except of course that the 45 was much better than the German 37, that the 57 was much better than the German 50, and that the 100mm was better than everything except the 88L71 and 128mm....except IIRC the 128mm was a field gun and not an ATG so I guess it shouldn't be compared......

And those were the only ATG's the Russians fielded

[ January 16, 2003, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[PatWilson]

My problem is the opposite. I can't kill the bloody things even long after they have given away their position. In extreme FOW they are nearly impossible to spot too (I usually play Full instead). At one point I had about six tanks targeting a single gun. Took two full rounds before they took it out.

Give me tanks as opponents any day .

[Bruceov]

IM NOT AFRAID OF THE ENEMY TANKS; I'M AFRAID OF THE UNSEEN ANTITANK GUN

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mike:

Except of course that the 45 was much better than the German 37, that the 57 was much better than the German 50, and that the 100mm was better than everything except the 88L71 and 128mm....except IIRC the 128mm was a field gun and not an ATG so I guess it shouldn't be compared......

And those were the only ATG's the Russians fielded

The Soviets during 41 had only just embarked on a crash production program of anti tank guns. Consequently there were severe shortages of the 4,5cm anti tank guns during the first year. Your comparisons are based on calibre not date of introduction/widespread use.

41' 3,7cm PaK

42' 5cm PaK 39 versus 4,5cm

43' 5cm PaK 38 and 7,5cm PaK 39 versus 4,5cm

44' 7,5cm PaK 39 versus 5,7cm

45' 7,5cm PaK 39 and 8,8cm PaK 43 versus 5,7cm (The Russian 10cm and German 12,8cm gun never really saw widespread use out side of Assault gun chasses).

[Guest Mike]

Actualy the 45 was introduced in 39 or 40 AFAIK - and was being phased OUT in 1941 in favour of the 57 - however the expected heavy German armour didn't appear, and as someone pointed out the 57 was very expensive so they temporarily dropped it as a matter of expediency.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mike:

Actualy the 45 was introduced in 39 or 40 AFAIK - and was being phased OUT in 1941 in favour of the 57 - however the expected heavy German armour didn't appear, and as someone pointed out the 57 was very expensive so they temporarily dropped it as a matter of expediency.

Under this line of reasoning the 5cm PaK 38 is a 1938 weapon and the 7,5cm PaK 39 is a 1939 weapon.

1941 the 4.5cm gun was in short supply due to Anti tank warfare only being given production priority after the German successes in 1940 France, NKO beginning the formation in May 1941 of specialised antitank brigades which sucked away anti tank guns from the rifle divisions. The Brigades were destroyed in place due to low mobilisation; 18 percent. ( 1998 Glantz Pg162-163).

The Zis-2 5,7cm gun was part of To&e until june/July 1943 (first incidence of production issue to troops) and did not become widespread until 1944.

[ January 16, 2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

Actualy the 45 was introduced in 39 or 40 AFAIK -

Under this line of reasoning the 5cm PaK 38 is a 1938 weapon and the 7,5cm PaK 39 is a 1939 weapon..</font>

[Bastables]

PaK 38 5cm first troop issue was 1940 then (two being constructed in 1939 for testing).

PaK40 7,5cm (all references to Pak 39 actually mean Pak 40, my mistake) first troop issued 1942.

PaK 43 8,8cm L/71 first troop issued 1943.

PaK 80 12.8cm first troop issued 1944 (Two constructed in 1943 for combat testing).

My above widespread use “table” still stands.

[ January 16, 2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Stalin's Organ]

Your above "widespread" table also was "introduced" - comparing 2 x 50mm PAK introduced for trial to 7500 45mm guns or at least like 100 57mm in 1941 (based on batteries being equipped with ZIS-30's in at least 20 SP AT brigades) is complete nonsense.

The 45mm was in service in huge numbers when the standard German AT gun was the 37 - period!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Your above "widespread" table also was "introduced" - comparing 2 x 50mm PAK introduced for trial to 7500 45mm guns or at least like 100 57mm in 1941 (based on batteries being equipped with ZIS-30's in at least 20 SP AT brigades) is complete nonsense.

The 45mm was in service in huge numbers when the standard German AT gun was the 37 - period!

1939 Trial production of 2 PaK 38 5cm

1940 Production= 388 PaK 38 5cm

1941 Production= 2072 PaK 38 5cm

1940 Production= 2713 PaK 37

1941 Production= 1365 PaK 37

[ January 17, 2003, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Bone_Vulture]

First, I'd like to note that the easiest way to kill AT guns in CM is with field mortars.

Second, I've noticed that in CM:BO nearly all Allied heavy tanks were armored just thickly enough to cause AP rounds fired from German 75L46 AT guns to ricochet... This is not the case in CM:BB, where the gun has an ideal penetration ability to blast holes in T-34's and KV-1's. It drives my friend nuts: "Those stupid 75mm guns weren't supposed to kill any of my tanks!"

[Leit]

I wonder you talking AT guns not effective... I don't support such idea ataking enemy positions with tanks

[Mikser]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

First, I'd like to note that the easiest way to kill AT guns in CM is with field mortars.

Second, I've noticed that in CM:BO nearly all Allied heavy tanks were armored just thickly enough to cause AP rounds fired from German 75L46 AT guns to ricochet... This is not the case in CM:BB, where the gun has an ideal penetration ability to blast holes in T-34's and KV-1's. It drives my friend nuts: "Those stupid 75mm guns weren't supposed to kill any of my tanks!"

As if that isn't terrible enough, it would almost seem that the Panzer IV and the StuG III/IV can survive a hit every now and then, whereas in CMBO you were better off buying something unarmored since a penetration of 1mm resulted in a knock out, practically always.