Protection for PaK Gunners - the Truth...

[Mr. Tittles]

Carrius, in Tigers in the Mud, makes it very clear that ATG are deadlier opponents than AFV. The TC must be unbuttoned to battle ATG. He will only get a very brief yellow flash when the ATG fires. It can be picked up using peripheral vision and each TC in a platoon needs to watch his sector.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Part of the problem is that the TacAI (in this case the individual unit) hasn't spotted the enemy unit yet, but come the end of the turn, the omniscient god (the player) can manually order the TacAI to engage the enemy unit directly. Perhaps if this target was rather inaccurate area fire until the TacAI spots the unit.

Ok, I understand now. Yes, the player forces the unaware unit to become aware. I think it would have been easy enough to design it so that the offending unit would simply ignore such targeting commands if it had no actual knowledge yet, just like when you try to area target a spot that the unit can not see.

[danielh]

Manstein,

Couldn't agree more !! AT-Guns were definetely the most feared weapon by tankers (Atleast german tankers, because very difficult to spot).

However i don't think it's only accountable for "Borg spotting". For instance the difference of a hidden, unhidden Gun is much to big. For AT-guns there should be no difference and every AT-gun unmoved during the game should be considered camouflaged. When fired only a "?" should appear unless the gun is in open ground. Only tanks and HQ-units should be able to spot them, when more than 300 m away (An inf grunt will not consider it unless being shot at by HE, then of course they should start spotting). Once this "?" appears some tanks or HQ-units with LOS would receive a time slot each round where they can spot the Gun (simulating a tendency to start searching the Gun). However unless the gun fires in one of the LOS Tank or HQ-units timeslot it can only be spotted with very low probability(out of luck). In case the gun fires and one of the LOS Tank- or HQ-units is in the timeslot to spot the Gun, probability will rise for every subsequent timeslot of any LOS HQ-unit or tank. In this fashion the AT-Gun will be spotted sometime when it commences fire, or remain a "?" -> (should be shown as "?AT"). The timeslotlength should remain unchanged for HQ-units, but increase for in command tankunits being shot at over time -> 1 AT vs. 5 T-34 solely; after some time the whole platoon will receive longer and longer timeslots unless another threat emerges, then the threats will "compete" concurrently for spotting timeslots(simple LIFO list). From a programming standpoint this should not be all to difficult. Of course this comes down to some sort of "memory" for atleast some unittypes -> Tanks, HQ-units.

Conclusion: In next game atleast some units need some sort of "memory". When i look at the memory footprint of CMBB, this should not be a problem. I would rather live with current graphics and really emphasize on this kind of topics (short term excitment vs. long term satisfaction).

Greets

Daniel

[Guest Manstein22]

Hi danielh

_____________________________________________________________________________

Couldn't agree more !! AT-Guns were definetely the most feared weapon by tankers (Atleast german tankers, because very difficult to spot).

_____________________________________________________________________________

One engagement during Operation Typhoon shows how effective AT guns were and how deadly.

Near the village of Illinskoye which was part of the outer defens ring of Moscow a whole tank company advancing on the road to Maroslavetse was wiped out by a few AT guns without a single casuality. Later the foot-stompers eliminated this threat.

I read the history of that tank unit, I think it was the 19. Panzerdivision, and those tankers were absolutly unable to spot the AT-guns which were hiding in a nearby wood until all 17 tanks were knocked out.

So were is that uberspotter?

If small AT weapons weren`t that deadly why should anyone use them. The Russians had Brigade size units of AT-guns. Isn`t that a clear sign of their effectivity?

Manstein

[flamingknives]

Equally, there are reports of ATGs being KO'd straight off by tanks, but ATGs are too visible in CM.

[Mr. Tittles]

Theres a good mention of how hard to spot ATG are in Armor Battles of the Waffen SS. A Panther recieves 20 hits and still can't make out where the ATGs are. The rest of his platoon has been KOd and he is mostly buttoned up. The ATG are less than 200m away.

The radio operator (first battle) loses his nerve and leaps out from the noise/shock of the hits. The panther is damaged but not that bad.

Later, infantry advance and take out the ATG with LATW.

[DesertMouse]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Theres a good mention of how hard to spot ATG are in Armor Battles of the Waffen SS. A Panther recieves 20 hits and still can't make out where the ATGs are. The rest of his platoon has been KOd and he is mostly buttoned up. The ATG are less than 200m away.

The radio operator (first battle) loses his nerve and leaps out from the noise/shock of the hits. The panther is damaged but not that bad.

Later, infantry advance and take out the ATG with LATW.

This particular ATG could have been very well camouflaged, alternatively, the commander was already deafened or just tired. There is no way that a tank commander with a cupola could not have detected the direction of the gun by simply working out where the rounds were hitting his tank, and then tried to detect it with binoculars or the Mk 1 eyeball.

Of course, if the ATG was a 37mm it would have been harder to detect. Any 50mm or 85mm gun would not be that difficult.

I really don't think that the ATGs are spotted too easily in this game, especially if they are on open ground. If they are concealed in forest or scattered trees they are much harder to spot.

Recently, my russian ATGs concealed at the edge of a scattered trees tile did very well against enemy armour, they were not detected until they had sqeezed off a few rounds, and even then kept up their fire under pressure of return fire which took quite a while to find its target.

That is what I assume would also occur in real life. These guns have a unique shape from the front, you can see their wheels, their crew, their smoke, their muzzle flash when they fire, the commander with his bi-scope ranging the targets, it's not too hard for someone (esp with binocs) to work out what an ATG is, and start firing on it.

[Joachim]

The wheels are often dug in, with branches covering the whole position except for a small part of the gun shield.

The commander is a few metres away. Only one man at a time is at the gun - loader or gunner.

Muzzle flash and smoke depend on type of shot.

It's easy to find out if the gun is big or small. You won't mess a 3.7cm PaK and an 88. But while almost any tank in Normandy was killed by an 88 (whether towed or SP), the Germans had only a very limited number of 88s there. Majority of guns there was 7.5cm. So it seems a lot of people messed up id'ing a lot of guns.

Gruß

Joachim

[DesertMouse]

I think this article from a Russian Anti Tank Gunner from WWII says it all. His name is Evgenii Monyushko.

Remember, he says that his gun was completely dug in and completely camouflaged to look like a haystack. Completely! He draws a picture with the gun enclosed in a haystack with other haystacks around it as if it were in a field of haystacks. Except he says basically if he drew it properly you wouldn't see any of the gun, just a haystack.

He chooses not to fire on the Tigers and Elephants which come over the horizon 1 - 1.5 km away - his 76 mm ZIS-3 gun will have no effect. He thinks it dangerous to fire on the closer Pz IV's, because his gun will be spotted almost immediately!!

"After short but powerful artillery raids the Germans would attack with their armor. Heavy AFVs, Tigers and Ferdinands, ascended hills deep inside the German positions and stopped 1-1.5 kilometers from our own positions. The lighter and more maneuverable Pz.IV's continued to advance together with small numbers of infantry. It made little sense for us to fire at the AFVs deployed in the rear. Even in case of a direct hit the shell couldn't cause serious damage at such range. But German tankers waited until our anti-tank battery was forced to open fire at the tanks advancing in the front. A gun that opened fire, exposed itself, immediately fell victim to a well aimed shot from the stationary heavy AFVs. It must be noted that Tigers had very precise sights and very accurate 88mm guns. This explains the advice that I received about not opening fire until the last moment. When opening fire from a "pistol shot range" you could expect to hit with the first or, in an extreme case, the second shell, and then, even if the gun was destroyed, you could still get an "exchange of figures" disadvantageous to the Germans - a tank for a light gun. But if you exposed your position prematurely the gun most probably would've been lost in vain.

This also explained the additional changes introduced to a typical structure of an artillery ditch. Two holes were made to the left and right of a gun's wheels - one for the gunner, the other for the loader. Practically, ZIS-3 guns didn't require simultaneous presence of the entire crew near the gun. Moreover, it was usually enough for only one person to be present. The gunner, after firing, could hide himself in his hole while the loader would drive the next shell into the barrel. Now the gunner could take his place, aim, and fire, and the loader would be taking cover at that time. Even after a direct hit into the gun at least one of the two had a chance to survive. The other crew members were spread out through the holes, side "pockets" of the trench. Practical experience, which was being accumulated in this regiment starting as far back as the Batttle of the Kursk Salient, allowed to minimize casualties. Over the one and a half months of fighting in the bridgehead, the regiment replaced its equipment three times, getting new and repaired guns to replace damaged and destroyed ones, and kept its fighting efficiency while getting almost no replacements in men."

See? Nothing wrong with CM:BB tanks spotting your guns, that's how it was.

Also, he describes an action in which his gun takes out a Tiger:

"A Tiger! The gunner doesn't see it yet in the field of view of his gun sight. And the machine gunner fires a burst at the tank, like a shotgun against an elephant, to attract the gunner's attention. The gun's barrel is lowered immediately, a shot, and the armor piercing shell ricochets off the front armor. And it was only fifty meters! "Subcaliber!" - the gunner yells desperately. The breech block clanks, swallowing the round. Fortunately, both the tank's gun and its driver look upward while the tank hasn't got out of the hollow. The subcaliber shell hits the bottom of the turret at almost point blank range. Apparently, something burst inside, a blue light flashed from all of the AFV's holes. The AFV doesn't burst into flames, but the crew tries to bail out through the hatches. A machine gun burst finishes the business..."

Note his panic - lucky how the Tiger's gun and its driver are looking upward while it is in the hollow. Otherwise, goodbye ATG, just like in CMBB.

[Mr. Tittles]

The description in Armor Battles of the Waffen SS is describing a lone buttoned tank. The crew is not deafened (what are you talking about? do you think an ATG can be heard? Tankers are wearing headphones and the noise of the engine will generally remove most exterior noises besides hits) nor tired (do you think adrenalin wouldnt obliterate any tiredness?). The author describes how the radio operator is a new replacement and absolutelty freaks out because the hits are mostly impacting near his armor. The disruption to the crew from his reaction has the effect of breaking up the precision teamwork and the tank retreats.

The fact is that a ATG has a decided advantage over a buttoned lone tank.

Your description of tanks with overwatch is a completely different thing. The ATGs are suppressed by fear of the overwatching tanks/SPs.

Also, in the game, once the crew leaves the weapon, it cant be remanned (as they would IRL).

[MikeyD]

If you want to see what a nearly invisible AT gun is like try playing with the German 28mm (20mm) squeeze bore heavy anti-tank rifle. Embed him into a clump of trees and just bast away. He's as hard to spot as an AT rifle with more punch than a 37mm gun.

For bigger guns try combining them with a length of trench. Before the last patch they were almost impossible to dislodge.

[rexford]

Some Russian 76.2mm field gun units which were fighting tanks used a method they developed at Kursk to cut down on gun crew casualties. Only one crew member was allowed near the gun at a time.

After the gun fired the gunner would dive into a trench and the loader would run up and do his thing. Then the loader would run for cover and the gunner would take his position and shoot.

Getting and keeping good gun crews was a high priority, and they could not afford to lose several men whenever a gun was targeted and HE landed on or near the gun. While rate of fire would be less than optimal, keeping crew members alive was a higher priority.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Can you make an ATG target, fire, then immediately hide again? The "pause" command only works for movement orders right? It does nothing for targeting and shooting.

I think most of the time you can get off 1 shot without being exposed by your country symbol.

[Mr. Tittles]

It would be nice to have a shoot n hide command like shoot n scoot. Basically take one shot and hit the dirt.

[Vixen]

Something is better than nothing I suppose. I understand Italy fielded AT guns with no sheild at all.

[DesertMouse]

Originally posted by rexford:

Some Russian 76.2mm field gun units which were fighting tanks used a method they developed at Kursk to cut down on gun crew casualties. Only one crew member was allowed near the gun at a time.

After the gun fired the gunner would dive into a trench and the loader would run up and do his thing. Then the loader would run for cover and the gunner would take his position and shoot.

Getting and keeping good gun crews was a high priority, and they could not afford to lose several men whenever a gun was targeted and HE landed on or near the gun. While rate of fire would be less than optimal, keeping crew members alive was a higher priority.

That would be a smart way of doing it.

It demonstrates the reality of the limited protection once the gun is discovered.

Compare this issue to initial camouflage - trees, haystacks, trenches, etc. It was ok to be firing a gun then, it was safe, but when it was discovered by the enemy of course a gun was going to be a priority target, much like a tank. A single gun, if left unsuppressed, could win the battle.

[Shmavis]

The 88 at the IWM is an early model FlaK, not a PaK. It was designed for AA so it had no gun shield. Later models had shields, though. See? Just click and drag the panorama to the right a little.

[Soddball]

You should also be aware that a gun/tank 'area firing' at any range in CM automatically becomes identified. I've run tests on an 8km map and units were being successfully identified in woods from 4km away on their first shot. Area fire will get you killed.

[Bigduke6]

First, I think giving AT guns a shoot-n-hide option is an excellent idea. I agree in general in CM it appears AT guns get ided too quickly. Dig a gun in with the tube ground level and have it open up on a buttoned tank - how is a tanker going to pick that up? I assume the guilty party is Borg spotting. Just let a unit on shoot-n-hide have some kind of lower prob on getting ided, and you don't even have to worrry about computing spotting for individual units.

Second, and I am not saying this is the actual case, but in Red Army lore one of the great advantages of the Maxim gun was that little shield really tended to keep the gunner alive. Same idea as hiding in your helmet while riding out a mortar barrage, I guess.

Anyway, I bet if a gunner and a loader were behind a gun's flak shield and trying to make themselves invisble, they would be durn hard to hit with direct fire.

[Code13]

I guess its a case of every little helps.

In WW1 the British Army didnt issue helmets until about 1916, the powers that be didnt think it would make much difference to survival.

Once the Tommys had helmets their mortality rate dropped massivly.

Given the choice between a small shield to stop shell splinters and small arms and having none at all, its a bit of a no brainer.

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by Code13:

In WW1 the British Army didnt issue helmets...its a bit of a no brainer.

Tell me that choice of words was unintentional.

[Code13]

partly...though it was seperated by two sentences.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Code13:

I guess its a case of every little helps.

In WW1 the British Army didnt issue helmets until about 1916, the powers that be didnt think it would make much difference to survival.

Once the Tommys had helmets their mortality rate dropped massivly.

Given the choice between a small shield to stop shell splinters and small arms and having none at all, its a bit of a no brainer.

Reputedly (and I don't have a source for this, it might be a tale from the mess) the beneficial effect of steel helmets was not immediately obvious to the people who would have been the Army's Operational Researchers of Operational Research had been invented by then.

After the issue of steel helmets, the number of casualties with head wounds seen at Regimental Aid Posts quadrupled relative to the previous rate. It was seriously suggested that steel helmets were increasing the rate of head injury, either by instilling over-confidence or though some other mechanism, and a proposal to withdraw them was made.

Fortunately, clever people spotted the fault in the reasoning and saw that steel helmets were indeed a life-saver.

All the best,

John.

[A.E.B]

Another interesting WWI stat is the fact that men on lookout at night in the trenchs would stand with their bodies down to the waist exposed.

The reason was that the other sides MGs would have been ranged in on their stands to rake just above the parapet. Every now and then these MGs would hose the opposing trench line.

If you stood with just your head exposedand were unlucky enough to get hit, you would suffer a headshot that was almost always fatal (and if not you wished it was).

By standing higher you were instead hit in the arms or chest, which while still potentially fatal, had a lower level of fatality and was less disabling if you survived.

The WWII ATG was hard to spot. However, the ATG's advantage in being low to the ground was also a disadvantage.

ATG crews needed to be able to spot targets. Hence it was common for lanes of sight/fire to be cleared when the ATG was deployed in cover. The gun needed to traverse, so trees and shrubs had to be removed around the gun.

Also, the muzzle of the barrel was also closer to the ground (particularly if dug in), so the muzzle blast would throw up dust and debris, and would also flatten out grass and ground cover.

I have read that poorly combusting propellent used in the shells would also leave black marks in front of the gun, a problem if you are in snow.

A.E.B

[Code13]

I think overall, the sentiment should be that a lone tank is no match for a dug in ATG, but a well structured armoured advance, with heavy tanks in overwatch as lighter tanks advanced is going to have no trouble with ATG positions unless the ATG unit picks its moment very carefully.

In all, restrict your ATG to firing at much closer range, and from the descriptions put an LMG with it as well to protect from infantry and to make the tank button up.