HE Effectiveness

[Wartgamer]

The target is 3 D. The group of planes are in space. The tanks are on teh ground. The Planes are at high altitude and the velocity of the shell is correspondingly lower.

[Wartgamer]

Getting back to earth based targets...

One of the primary reasons ATG are so hard to combat is range estimation. They are so small and varied in size and exposure that estimating range visually is much more difficult than estimating range on a AFV.

They are also very easy to camoflauge or emplace into houses, etc. In a typical 1 on 1 engagement, the first shot will typically go to the ATG.

Even a marginally emplaced ATG (lets say 1/2 wheels-down for the sake of argument) is much smaller than the best hull-down vehcile. Its also less wide.

A ATG is typically engaged with HE. A AFV is typically engaged with AP. In most cases the HE has less velocity than the AP. It is also less accurate and spinning less also (any shell fired through the same rifled weapon with less velcoity will exhibit this).

Trying to take out a ATG with precision fire on the shield at anything but close range is difficult and time consuming.

The fact is that most medium to high velocity direct fire weapons COULD target the width of an antitank gun in most cases. If not on the first shot, then by the second.

By using delay fuse tactics, a more forgiving 'length' (variation in range) effectiveness is achieved where shorts and direct hits are more effective.

For those weapons like a 37mm HE round with a point detonating (non-delay) fuse, and its weak HE performance, attacking ATG is very risky business.

Weapons like a 75mm HE with delay have a very good chance of quickly neutralizing the crew if they can quickly pick up the ATG's position (mostly by conceding the first shot and sensing the muzzle flash).

A sherman using a 75mm semi-exploding WP is even more effective when fired short. It will spray the ATG and crew with WP and large fragments (like sabers) and quickly blind the ATG and mark it for the other supporting arms to pummel.

[ June 23, 2005, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

ATG

They are also very easy to camoflauge or emplace into houses, etc.

How do you get a 6pounder with carriage into a typical European house without knocking out a wall or dismantling the gun first?

[Wartgamer]

Luckily ATG are often used during an ongoing war and houses, buildings, barns (which have wide doors anyway), are often destroyed, damaged, or intentionally 'remodeled' for wartime purposes.

I now have the ability to draw pictures and post them online so as to make the fairly evident totally obvious. Let me know if you need some pictures Dorosh.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Luckily ATG are often used during an ongoing war and houses, buildings, barns (which have wide doors anyway), are often destroyed, damaged, or intentionally 'remodeled' for wartime purposes.

I now have the ability to draw pictures and post them online so as to make the fairly evident totally obvious. Let me know if you need some pictures Dorosh.

Can you post a picture of an ATG located in a European house? Thanks.

[Wartgamer]

Sorry for the words but I am sure a pic is coming.

From the daily military records of the 345th, kindly supplied to us by Earle Hart (A-345), we find that on January 7th an antitank squad, attached to C Company, had some considerable interaction with German tanks in Bonnerue. The antitank squad set up their gun in a barn alongside the road from Tonny where the German tanks were approaching. When one of the tanks reached their position they fired four rounds directly into the tank's side from only a few feet away. They killed two in the tank and one that tried to escape. The shells penetrated both sides of the tank. The CP of the 345th Regiment was established in Remagne.

There is an interesting description of the above events in a recent Belgium article written with the help of Belgium civilians that were there (La Battaille des Ardennes, by V. Dermience, page 123):

"Hector Collet, of Bonnerue, was in his barn when the Americans fired on the German tank. The Americans had placed an antitank gun inside the barn and they had also placed a cart on the road to obstruct it".

In this article they also mentioned that another antitank gun was placed on the left side of the building occupied as the CP for C Company.

[Michael Dorosh]

Hi

I was referring to "house" which I believe was the original reference you made. A barn is not a house.

Looking forward to the pictures, thanks.

[Wartgamer]

Are we to guess what your point could be? That an ATG can never be brought into a partially destroyed house?

European Barns, by the way, can be quite formidible.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Are we to guess what your point could be? That an ATG can never be brought into a partially destroyed house?

European Barns, by the way, can be quite formidible.

Instead or presuming to know what I'm thinking, perhaps you could just post the evidence you claim to have. Looking forward to it, thanks in advance.

As to your second para - yes, my own research gives me no reason to doubt any assertion that European barns were solidly constructed. I wasn't aware that that fact was in dispute. I'll stipulate that it isn't.

[Wartgamer]

I quite frankly do not give a damn what you think. Just wonder if you have a point.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I quite frankly do not give a damn what you think. Just wonder if you have a point.

I was disputing your point, actually, about ATGs being deployed inside "houses." You haven't answered the question - given the construction of European houses, why would you say that they were commonly deployed inside of them? Given the 6 pounder as a "typical" ATG, I would suggest that weight and size considerations would preclude such deployment. Partially demolished houses wouldn't appear to me to provide any better solution; buildings tend to create large piles of rubble when destroyed which would be difficult to negotiate an anti-tank gun over. I also presume that given the normal configuration of a 6 pounder - ie a wheeled carriage with a universal carrier/Loyd Carrier/Windsor Carrier/T16 to tow it - the intent would be to have it move quickly out of its hiding spot once it fired, in order to redeploy.

Did you have anything substantial to say about those suppositions?

[Wartgamer]

Yes buildings tend to create large piles when destroyed. Luckily, that is rubble and I am not saying ATGs are deployed into rubble easily. So strike that supposition.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Yes buildings tend to create large piles when destroyed. Luckily, that is rubble and I am not saying ATGs are deployed into rubble easily. So strike that supposition.

So how do they get inside the houses, then?

[Wartgamer]

I would use a winch. A Canadian might use a mule or a relative.

[rleete]

The ATG fairy?

[Wartgamer]

Well, most Canadians are related to fairies.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I would use a winch. A Canadian might use a mule or a relative.

I think you're missing the point - given the solid construction of the buildings and narrowness of the doors, how would the gun fit through whatever apertures were available? Knocking out a wall would provide a mound of rubble as well as making the position exposed to shellfire.

Did you have a serious answer?

This was a large complaint when CMBO came out - the inability to put large support weapons in houses. It was common in other games, such as Squad Leader, etc. I think CM has it right, and no doubt it will be an issue for CMX2.

If you're done insulting me, perhaps you might provide an answer to the question, which would no doubt be of interest to the CMX2 design team. It would certainly be of interest to me.

Also, some evidence that ATGs were commonly deployed "in houses" might make your case.

Waiting patiently.

[Michael Dorosh]

Incidentally, the common transport for anti-tank guns in CW units was not the halftrack, but the carrier. I don't believe they were equipped with winches. Why would you suggest winches or mules, when AT platoons were never equipped with them?

Some AT platoons of 1st Canadian Division in Italy had their carriers lost at sea on the way to Sicily and soldiered on with 15 cwt trucks, but I don't believe they had winches either, nor have I ever read an account of an anti-tank gun being winched inside a house. Have you? If so, where could I go to read such an account?

[Brent Pollock]

Maybe he's thinking of all those Dutch houses that have winches attached to the second floor because the doors and stairs are so narrow that you have to bring beds 'n' such in through the upstairs window.

[MikeyD]

There are common photos of M2 halftracks (not M3s) hauling 57mm At guns about in U.S. service. And halftracks do commonly have winches on the front for unditching. But it would take a pretty dedicated crew get a gun into a house. Maybe some former piano movers had been drafted into service! This doesn't sound like a good idea for offensive operations (rather time/labor intensive), BUT Germans along the Hitler line would have plenty of time - and incentive - to place their guns in clever locaions. I understand a fair number of "AT gun Bunkers" were built into the foundations of farmhouses (or the pillboxes had been cleverly disguised as farmhouses). AT guns in buildings sounds like its much more likely to be a defensive German or Soviet (Stalingrad) tactic than U.S./Commonwealth.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

Maybe he's thinking of all those Dutch houses that have winches attached to the second floor because the doors and stairs are so narrow that you have to bring beds 'n' such in through the upstairs window.

But if you've got a small weapon mounted on wheels and towed by a fast tracked vehicle capable of going almost anywhere at relatively good speeds, why would you then winch that same weapon up to a second story, where it could be easily destroyed by enemy gun or shellfire, and be almost impossible to extricate while under that fire?

If anyone has a photo of an ATG being emplaced like this, or reference to it being done, I'd be interested in seeing that. ATGs on second stories is a new one on me.

[MikeyD]

I had actually read of this very tactic taking place! I'm trying to remember where...

It may have been something about not being able to get a decent shot at a pesky enemy tank up the street (urban fighting). An AT gun was manhandled into a building and up a flight of stairs - with great effort apparently - and was able to get a clear shot at the tank out of a bedroom window.

...at least that's how I recall the tale. I think the story was included because it was such a heroic task to attempt, NOT because if was SOP!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I think the story was included because it was such a heroic task to attempt, NOT because if was SOP!

I would tend to agree. Good info. The American M2 and M3 halftracks were designed with several bumper configurations, incidentally - some with winches, others with a large "roller" to help get the vehicle through ditches. Not sure which was more common. Others had plain bumpers also, naturally.

[Wartgamer]

I never said it was common. I said it was easily done. There is a difference but it just goes to show that when Dorosh jumps in a thread, confusion ensues.

An ATG is placed (or sited) to best accomplish its mission.

I would agree that for armies on the move, it may be more trouble than what it is worth. For the Germans, it was definetly worthwhile.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I never said it was common. I said it was easily done. There is a difference but it just goes to show that when Dorosh jumps in a thread, confusion ensues.

How is it easily done if it doesn't fit in the door? My confusion stems from your unsupported blanket statement. I don't see how it is "easily done" nor have you explained how to achieve this goal, nor given any evidence that it is true.

:confused:

Sorry to confuse the issue; you threw out the statement; I disagree with the statement and am politely asking for clarification while suggesting you may be in error. I've also refrained from personal attacks, of which you've now made at least two.