Anti-tank weapons mounted on flat-bed trucks

[DavidFields]

I am playing some early scenarios, and I am fascinated by these Italian 75mm anti-tank weapons mounted on trucks (and their 50mm-I think-British counterparts). Sort of, it seems to me, an evolutionary dead end in weapon development. (Makes me wonder, though, why armies did not just whinch guns, or roll them up ramps, into trucks and haul them around that way, rather than tow them--or maybe they did, over distances too far to be represented by CM.)

In CM terms, for the purpose of being KO'ed, are they treated like trucks, antitank weapons, or something in between? In CM, or in real life, would one often find the truck immobilized, while the AT gun was still functional (the gun shield on the Italian weapon looks fairly substantial)?

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Rankorian:

(Makes me wonder, though, why armies did not just whinch guns, or roll them up ramps, into trucks and haul them around that way, rather than tow them--or maybe they did, over distances too far to be represented by CM.)

Consider the size and weight of most AT guns, even the early war pea-shooters. Far easier to hitch them to the back of a truck than rolling them up a ramp, securing them, then praying the truck's transmission doesn't fall apart from the stress.

In CM terms, for the purpose of being KO'ed, are they treated like trucks, antitank weapons, or something in between?

They are treated as trucks when being shot at.

[von Lucke]

You mean like this?

I think this was more a case of "desperate times call for desperate measures" than a long-term solution. As Kinfish pointed out, it's rather hard on the transmission.

If you want to see the ultimate evolution of the portee, check out the British-built Deacon. (Seems kind of a waste of good armor-plate to me, but whatever...).

And yes, the CM engine treats portees as trucks --- much like the German flak trucks. Can be a bit of a pain at times, getting them to shoot rather than flee. Not to mention their vulnerability to small-arms fire.

[JasonC]

They aren't nearly as effective in CM as they were in real life, for two reasons. One, in CM if there is any LOS line at all to a vehicle it will be spotted. Two, infantry type fire doesn't have to worry about accuracy, only fire effect (which a soft enough target ensures can be bad enough).

In reality, it was quite hard to locate the things, even after they opened up. They regularly got off multiple shots and moved without being spotted. Their own dust then covered their withdrawal. Also, even when spotted, the first several shots were almost always ranging misses, and were the signal to get out of dodge. And MG fire at AT gun ranges (km and up I mean) was rarely accurate enough to be dangerous, unless sustained. Nor was it easy to correct range for a rapidly moving target, in dust and haze etc.

Their drawback in real life was that they were vulnerable to artillery fire, compared to tanks. But they were a lot better than nothing, and in practice they were also better than a stationary ground mounts, that were relatively easy to avoid in wide open desert.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

As Kinfish pointed out, it's rather hard on the transmission.

Plus, you have much less room in the truck to haul ammo and all the other kit that the gun crew (not to mention the crew itself) accumulate. I don't know how they resolved that one, more trucks I guess.

Michael

[DavidFields]

As usual, thanks for the insightful replies.

Yea, I had thought about the ammo situation--with towing you can have everything together. I think I was thinking anachronistically about more modern, large, flat-bed trucks.

It was the hypervulnerability to small-arms fire, if they are just seen as a truck in CM terms, that I was thinking about.

Though...the evolution was to put them in thin-skinned half-tracks--so maybe crews do like to have a few mm of metal around them to help against the odd sniper/rifle when wandering around.

Of course, then the mentality is to think they are "armored" and put the gunned-HT into the main battle, usually to poor results.

Still, a cute unit, the Italian gun--just the kind that might not make it into future simulations which will be less comprehensive. And it gives the Italians something to use against the jaw-dropping armor of the Matilda II.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

[snips]

If you want to see the ultimate evolution of the portee, check out the British-built Deacon.

The portee idea continued for quite a while after the war. For example, the British Wombat 120mm recoilless gun was mounted en portee on Land Rovers and in the large circular hatch of the FV432 APC. This makes sense, because the Wombat was a light weapon, not particularly suitable for towing, and such a mounting gives the possibility of getting the gun into action quickly if surprised on the move.

All the best,

John.

[flamingknives]

Did you ever get the chance to fire that particular beastie, John?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by von Lucke:

[snips]

If you want to see the ultimate evolution of the portee, check out the British-built Deacon.

The portee idea continued for quite a while after the war. For example, the British Wombat 120mm recoilless gun was mounted en portee on Land Rovers and in the large circular hatch of the FV432 APC. This makes sense, because the Wombat was a light weapon, not particularly suitable for towing, and such a mounting gives the possibility of getting the gun into action quickly if surprised on the move.</font>